Re: Unsupported Debian [was: Re: [New maintainer] Working for De
Steve Willer <willer@interlog.com> writes:
> On 6 Aug 1999, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
>
> > The pointer to Slink updates is in the release notes for Debian 2.1,
> > as is the pointer to gnome packages for slink.
>
> I couldn't find the pointer to gnome packages.
The release notes are at:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/
There is a heading "Gnome" which describes Gnome and has a link to the
page all about Gnome in slink.
> > The pointer to
> > packages which may cause problems when upgrading to 2.2.X series
> > kernels is also in the release notes for Slink.
>
> I couldn't find that either.
Same URL as above, last line of "Errata":
Slink is certified for use with the 2.0.x series of Linux
kernels. If you wish to run the Linux 2.2.x kernel with slink,
see the *list of known problems.*
Where "list of known problems" is a link too:
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2
> I was thinking it would be nice to have notes on the Debian home page, not
> a number of links deep. The security sources.list line could have been
> added to /security/. A slink FAQ might have been nice.
We can't put everything on the home page. I agree that a sources.list
security line listed in the release notes or on the Security page
itself would be very useful. An FAQ might help, but nearly all the
question you just posted are answered in the release notes. The ones
that aren't do not IMO indicate a genuine attempt to keep information
hidden from users.
> That said, I still can't find most of that stuff in the release notes.
> Oh...it's in the "Release Information" area. But not the release notes.
> And I can't find the security source line anywhere; I don't even remember
> where I first saw it.
Outside of the sources.list line for security updates, the only reason
I can think of for you not finding that information is that you did
not attempt to read the document for comprehension.
> I said I did understand how people get swamped or disinterested. What I
> have trouble with is the fact that they haven't tried to *fix* the
> problem, and instead have (secretly) set up their "swamped" state as
> at least an informal policy.
This is FUD.
> That's true. But new maintainers aren't happening. Perhaps this is one of
> those things where a rumour or informal opinion takes a life on its own as
> a policy statement. But...James Troup, in his post, didn't address the
> issue in the thread, only whether he made his statements in IRC or not.
You are again spreading FUD. Please refrain from doing that. James
Troup does not need to address FUD whenever he posts to this group, he
has better things to do.
> > It is open to the public.
>
> Theoretically.
What? You can't get your browser to read those pages? More FUD.
> What I was trying (lamely) to say is that there are a lot of effects that
> can be traced to bureaucracy and a project that seems to not have as much
> energy as it should.
I still don't see how you are making your link to bureaucracy. I
think it is a red herring.
> I switched to Debian because I hated poor quality. I've loved Debian's
> setup and policies (with some exceptions) from the beginning, and I still
> do, really. But to ignore the need for new blood and new energy is a huge
> travesty, IMO.
I don't see how you go from acknowledging that new-maintainers is
swamped, to insinuating that Debian is ignoring new blood. That is a
sizeable leap, and you are not giving any evidence to support it.
People are attempting to fix this problem, but new-maintainers is a
rather important, and difficult post, so not just anyone can take up
that task. The people in that post are also heavily involved in other
aspects of Debian, so there is much contention for their time.
--
Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
I say woe unto those who are wise in their own eyes, and yet
imprudent in 'dem outside -Sizzla
Reply to: