On Monday 14 March 2005 19:38, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote: > > Both are currently "happening." The current release and security teams > > say that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump > > up and prove them wrong by creating > > stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks and eventually we will have > > timely Debian stable releases people can trust their jobs on and Debian > > stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks releases for > > Which end done doing less because they have to duplicate all the > architecture already in place for tier1, no ?
I believed that to be the point of this whole thread: the people who do this work for sarge believe that they won't be able to release etch within any reasonable timeframe with the current modus operandi. A specific example: Security updates. If they are no more than a regular buildd upload, then doing stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks should be possible without much effort from the porters. If security updates are more than a buildd compiling and uploading a new source package after a DSA was released, that is a good hint why the current security team is burdened by this and why this should be put on porters shoulders. I know that a stable release is more than security updates, but I think the argument holds also for other parts: D-I, package selection, RC-bug handling, etc ... In any way I think the effect should not be a fork of efforts but more people adding work where it will help the arch reach tier-1 status or realizing that the arch cannot fulfil the (vary) high quality standards Debian/stable adheres to. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
