Scripsit Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> Mark Brown wrote:
>> Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
>> manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
>> added by d-i?
> It'd be possible, certainly -- cf proposed-updates and stable.
The proposal says that secondary architectures are not allowed to have
proposed-updates and stable.
> and the expectation is that non-release arches don't stress as much
> about RC bugs and similar as release arches will,
On what is this expectation founded? Mind you "non-release" is not a
status that the portes involved in the arch voluntarily choose; it is
something forced on them by the release team (or some of the other
veto powers of the Vancouver plan).
> which means you should be able to do an Ubuntu and say (as they do
> for universe) "we'll release when we want, and if random packages
> are broken, well, wait a few months and cross your fingers :)".
And what if a secondary architecture does not want to lower themselves
to that standard.
--
Henning Makholm "Vi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i
den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra
Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også
give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag!"
