Re: plans for discover transition (was: plans for d-i string freeze)
There apparently was some discussion between branden robinson and me
which did not get through to the list or at least the list archive due
to the break in. Branden proposed the following transition:
---
Well, here's what I'd personally like: :)
1) Get a good feedback cycle going between Progeny and debian-boot
regarding discover2's suitability for debian-installer. The goal
here is "feature-complete", not "bug-free".
2) Hand off maintenance off Discover 1.x to the d-i team. You guys are
already the de facto maintainers of Discover 1.x and everyone who
reads the changelogs knows that.
3) Rename the current discover source package to discover-old or
discover1; drop the libdiscover-dev package from it; rename the
discover package to discover-old or discover1, and have it Conflict:
discover.
4) Thanks to 1), we will upload discover 2.0 to Debian unstable.
That should make it clear that DIscover 1.x is deprecated, but will
enable either to be installable, and d-i can use either one,
transitioning on a schedule that is completely under your control.
How does that sound?
----
Following to discussions I had with pere, we would like to release d-i
with discover2 and drop discover1 before release. During this transition
both versions of discover should be available (no hard transition on
which everything breaks).
IMO if we want to release sarge with discover2 for d-i we have to
release beta2 with discover2 (after that it's too late for this change!)
One consequence of this is that we need discover2 udebs ASAP. I'm not
sure if we should wait on progeny providing them any longer as we have
been waiting for months now. OTOH progeny has made available their
subversion archive recently and it seems that they are working on it. My
conclusion is that we should try to find a way to upload an udeb-only
version of discover2 so we can test it on a wider basis without risking
to break existing discover installations. Progeny could then afterwards
take over discover maintenance when they are ready and upload a full
discover package. This way we are not constrained by the work of progeny
but are also not hijacking their package too much.
What do you think about this?
gaudenz
P.S.: If we include discover2 in beta2, I would vote for a longer time
between the opening of CVS and the release of the string freeze (approx.
1,5 weeks should be ok) or an exception for discover related strings (if
there are any).
Am Son, den 07.12.2003 schrieb David Nusinow um 11:16:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 08:46:58PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > When reading Thomas fix, I had this feeling, yes.
> >
> > However, the point is to remove this FTBFS bug from discover1 so that
> > it can be part of the sarge release.
>
> Definitely. This and the /cdrom mount bug.
>
> > Thomas fix may be called a ugly hack, I guees, but it works...and thus
> > allows me to do what I first intended to do --> switch to po-debconf
> > and have the debconf templates translated.
> >
> > I'm currently inthe process of having a quick NMU uploaded (with the
> > help of Joey), by using Thomas dirty fix.
>
> Good to hear!
>
> > I don't have the skills for doing a better job, unfotunately.
> >
> > I propose that I send you a copy of the "fixed" diff file for the
> > 1.5-1.4.2 NMU. Then you may have a look at it and propose a better
> > fix. Thus, you may then be able to propose a clean 1.4.3 fix.
> >
> > Are you OK with this way to deal with this ?
>
> This is perfect for now. I'd rather see the RC bug out of the way so
> things can actually move forward. Once the linux-kernel-headers are
> fixed, we can just get rid of the hack and be done with it. I'd like to
> try and clean up the RC bug fix as well, since it's not as clean as it
> could be. I'll see about applying some of the other patches that have
> been languishing in the bts for a while.
>
> > Discover1 needs to be kept alive in sarge....at least because d-i is
> > using it.
>
> Ok, that's true. I'm more than happy to keep it alive for the time
> being. I'll contact the progeny people and see about some kind of
> transition plan as well.
>
> - David Nusinow
>
> p.s. Sorry about the mail bounce. I'm subscribed to -boot now, so no
> need to cc me any more. Thanks to you guys for going to the trouble to
> get the mail to me.
>
Reply to: