armel/armhf in stretch LTS

[Adrian Bunk]

This is utterly premature and unwarranted. Don't be ridiculous.

Personal attacks don't change the facts.

You *are* being ridiculous. You're claiming to know ~2 years early
what we'll end up with.

stretch LTS and buster have the same EOL, and for armel/armhf they
have the same buildd problem.

So long as there are people interested enough in LTS for those
architectures to cover the work and costs, there's no reason to stop.

"work" would include that there have to be buildds running and
maintained outside the Debian infrastructure.
"work" would also include that every package built by these buildds will
have to be manually signed by a DD before it can enter stretch-security,
similar to what is currently done for kfreebsd-*.
This would not be completely imposible, but an order of magnitude
more "work and costs" than for an architecture that has normal
DSA-maintained buildds.

Enjoy your preconceptions. *Nothing* of what you're writing here might
actually be necessary. How about waiting a little to see how things
develop?

How much exactly is "waiting a little"?

Building armel for buster is an urgent issue on my plate,
if you have a solution for that please share it.

cu
Adrian