Anthony Towns wrote: [snip] > >The "stabilise" is the missing part in the proposal. Stabilization and > >security would need to be done outside Debian. > > From the announcement: > > --- > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases > are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is > intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the > ftpmasters also intend to provide porter teams with the option of > releasing periodic (or not-so-periodic) per-architecture snapshots of > unstable. > --- > > What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll > be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems > that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result > in a new "snapshot-20050732/main/binary-foo" tree
How is arch:all handled in this scenario? Does the snapshot include them as well? > matching the work in unstable and a corresponding source tree; Is it possible to alter snapshot source packages in order to fix rmeaining bugs? > at which point CDs/DVDs can be > burnt from the snapshot, and unstable development can continue. That > tree will persist for a while, depending on how much archive space it > takes up. At least one known good (and not too old) snapshot needs to stay around, otherwise it isn't possible to re-create a buildd chroot from official debian packages when unstable breaks severly. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
