* Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-14 13:10]:
> | I have yet to see a proposal how to do multiarch in the right way.
> What is lacking in the proposals out there?
The following is what I (as DPL) sent to the release people in January
to get them to discuss these issues. I didn't post this to a list
because what I wrote is kinda rough and I wanted the release people to
clarify and post it. Since this hasn't happened yet, I might just as
well post my original message. But please note that some important
things might be missing in it.
Basically, there has been a lot of discussions about multi-arch and
some people seem to think that after sarge we'll _obviously_ move to
multi-arch. Well, this is not so obvious to me. In particular, I see
no consensus among ftpmaster/archive people, release people, toolchain
people, porters, and basically everyone else that this is the way to
go. If we decide to go with multi-arch, we need:
- agreement of all these people
- a _clear_ plan about this migration (and have this plan before
sarge is out), including a clear timeplan (announcement on day X,
maintainers have Y months to upload, if they don't do it in Y
months, we'll have a time of Z people who'll NMU the packages by
G).
- a proof of concept (this may exist already)
- agreement with some upstream LSB people that it's a good idea for
Debian to pioneer this in the hope that others will follow suite
(rather than a way of Debian to make itself incompatible with
the rest of the world). [Chris Yeoh and taggart are the people
to talk to.]
There may be a few other things missing, but basically the multi-arch
people have to show a clear plan _now_ how and why this migration is
supposed to happen.
Can one of you take what I said just, put this in some more coherent
form and post it to -devel?
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
