Re: 2.2r1 release problems
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:12:49PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Oh, come on. This is a needless overreaction and sensationalism.
Ouch! ;-)
Just trying to help.
> If you want
> to know the criteria used to select packages for r1, see Anthony Towns's post
> to debian-release, or just read the ChangeLog for r1. Exactly 2 packages
> that were not bugfixes or security updates were let in (mozilla update,
> new console-apt that did not get into r0 due to a string of misfortunes);
On my system, dselect shows new version numbers on:
base-passwd
dpkg
make
mutt
netscape (etc)
gnupg
task-x-window-system-core
pcmcia-cs
and others.
> and the criteria used to select them was that "they should make users
> notably better off; and they shouldn't ever make it harder for users to
> do anything they were doing before."
>
> Threats of mass user migrations to redhat without any substantiation of
> any kind or even any concrete problem reports are the kind of hot air
> that gain people perminant black marks in my book.
I'm sorry to hear that, and I'd hate to get your black mark. But I wasn't
threatening anything, I was just pointing out how alarmed I was to see so many
packages changed in what I would very much like to believe is a trustworthy
and stable distribution. And no, I haven't experienced any breakage myself
(not having installed the new packages), and I'm very glad about that. But
when the Project Leader says Debian is broken, I believe it.
As I'm writing this email, I've just received the official announcement of
r1 from Nils Lohner. I quote:
The Debian team is currently working on several security issues and other bug
fixes are pending. A 2.2r2 release is expected within the next 10 days to
address these issues. It is recommended that people wishing to install these
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
updates or create CD images wait until the release of version 2.2r2 to do so.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, it's nice to get the warning, but it still amounts to there being no
stable version of Debian at the moment, which I think is a situation to be
avoided if possible. In other posts in this thread, people have argued for
making more prominent announcements, but I still feel that point releases
deserve their own tree. Suppose unexpected coding problems delay 2.2r2? Was
it really necessary to get rid of 2.2 just to release r1? At least if they
had their own tree, people who really need both stability and fixes, would
know that 2.2 was there for them. And the developers could put out their
point releases without causing any upset.
It would be different if the installation tools did not silently upgrade to
the untested point release. In fact, I have a new suggestion to throw out
for consideration: why not have the installation tools themselves be aware
when a new point release comes out, and give a warning to the user? This
would make sure that everyone, whether they followed the announcements or
not, would know what they were getting into. This might even be better than
splitting off separate trees for releases that are essentially very similar.
It still wouldn't solve the problem of newcomers wanting to try Debian and
finding that they'd better wait, but maybe they won't mind waiting a little.
Zack
>
> --
> see shy jo
--
--
Zack Brown, Linuxcare, Inc.
tel: 1-415-354-4878x284, fax: 1-415-701-7457
zbrown@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.
Reply to: