On 2013-11-28 21:24, Daniel Pocock wrote: > I've found the builds on the less used architectures have been useful > for flushing out unusual bugs, particularly when the code ships with > many test cases and it exposes problems for big endian machines, etc. > > Also, kFreeBSD and HURD are both kind of special in that they are not > Linux, it would be good to keep one or the other around even if other > architectures are culled more aggressively. >
Keeping them around is different from them being considered as release architectures (or even just keeping them in testing). Keeping these architectures in testing do involve a burden, like blocking testing migration when they FTBFS[1]. In theory they could all stay in sid provided that the relevant teams approve it. I believe the FTP masters are the authority on that. However, I would not be surprised if DSA were to object to maintaining machines running sid. ~Niels [1] Having them in testing as a "F***ED" and "BREAK" arch would remove that burden, but you might as well just use sid then. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5297acf1.4070...@thykier.net
