Hi, Brian Nelson wrote:
> If they come to a
> conclusion that it's impossible to make timely releases and keep all of
> these architectures in a single archive, then that's their decision to
> make.
True. *If*. However, AFAIK they haven't done that yet.
> If you care enough about a particular SS
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 06:37:22PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> >> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
> >> whatever) to their autobuilders,
> >
> > True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
> > Debian archi
Scripsit Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
>>> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
>>> whatever) to their autobuilders,
>> True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
>> Debian archive, which will carry only "uns
Hi, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
>> whatever) to their autobuilders,
>
> True - for as long as they do not try to upload the result to the
> Debian archive, which will carry only "unstable".
I do not consider this to be set in stone
Frank Küster a écrit :
There is one problem: These porters would need a debian.org machine to
host their archive, and this puts again some workload on the ftpmasters
and system admins. From the Vancouver proposal it seemed to me that
it was not planned to provide such ressources.
If there is more
Scripsit Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Because of [1], because they said they will drop security on tier-2
>> arches and that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did
>> they not ?
> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
> w
Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
>
>> Because of [1], because they said they will drop security on tier-2 arches
>> and
>> that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did they not ?
>
> Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> Because of [1], because they said they will drop security on tier-2 arches and
> that porters should be left to fend by themselves, did they not ?
Nothing's going to prevent porters from adding stable-security (or
whatever) to their autobuilders, so even if "they" drop su
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:22:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 17:18, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > It is not unstable that I am (most) worri
9 matches
Mail list logo
