On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:57:40PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:06:35AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
>
> > I have no objection to releasing security updates for the 4 "main" archs
> > with announcements, and the rest as soon as they're compiled (which
> > should be just about as soon for most).
>
> > I also have no objection to releasing stable later on some archs, or not
> > at all, of nobody from those archs works to do it.
>
> > I do object to preventing those archs from releasing stable, and from
> > being supported at all by the security infrastructure.
>
> Please clarify what you think a late-releasing stable arch is going to
> look like, in contrast to what has been proposed, given that keeping
> release architectures in sync is the only thing we have that guarantees
> the sources in testing (and therefore in stable) are in a releasable
> state for each of those architectures.
I'm not sure I quite understand the question. I don't believe that
the proposal as given provides any way for a SCC arch to produce a
real stable release, with security support and the same versions of
packages as everything else.
You are right; there are challenges and in many ways it is a
regression from what we have now, but it is not as serious of one.
If the state of stable, as a source distribution, is not satisfactory
for a given arch, they have a couple of options:
1) binary-only NMUs if it is solely a build environment problem
2) careful, minimal diffs to be applied in stable and included
with the next point release
3) their own source repo containing the packages that have changed,
hoping that this set is minimal
-- John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
