I totally disagree with it. The current proposal (or even decision?), is like cutting the leg when only one toe is affected.On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
Sven Luther a écrit :
- Not having slower arches hold up testing.
Slower arches don't hold up testing. Arches with buildd not well managed do.
Ok, drop this argument, but what do you think of the rest of the proposal ?
What about partial mirroring to address space problems? What about a team for wanna-build so that help and machines are not refused anymore? What about a team for buildd so that there is always an admin available at a given time?
Maybe it doesn't work, but at least we have to try, before dropping arches. Because it's clear that SCC arches will be dropped sooner or later, if they are considered by debian-developers as "secondary arches".
And arm as a badly buildd-maintained one ? :)
Yes, that's clear.
-- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
