Re: Releasing Potato
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> This message started out on -private; I've revised it a little thanks
> to some comments from Martin "Joey" Schulze. I'll confine my editing
> to [stuff in brackets], and adding a few points along the way.
>
> ---
> [Responding to discussion about how many extra eons it'll take to
> release potato if we also update slink.]
>
> We can't release potato in the near future anyway, unless we accept:
>
> 1. Policy version >= 3.0.0.0 is invalid for potato. (i.e. we revert to
> FSSTND and throw out packages that already transitioned)
>
> or
>
> 2. Policy 3.1.0.0 specifies a transition that does not require the
> modification of more than N packages, where N is ~sqrt(number of
> packages in the dist.)
>
> [NB: We're apparently going with 2, according to the tech
> ctte. decision announced here. I assume the debian-policy package
> will incorporate the tech ctte. decision soon.]
Any news on this issue?
> Nowhere has there ever been any discussion of what the minimum
> acceptable standards-version for potato will be. If we do convert
> wholly to FHS for potato (instead of fixing core packages to accept
> FHS locations but not insist upon them), presumably it will be
> 3.0.0.0; otherwise, somewhere around 2.4.0.0 would be reasonable for
> self-contained packages (i.e. ones that don't touch mail or look at
> man pages or docs).
>
> [See above. 2.4.0.0? 2.5.0.0? Inquiring minds want to know...]
Was anything released covering this yet?
> Here are some real, satisifiable goals for potato:
>
> 1. Perl transition completed, by NMUs if needed.
Done so far.
> 2. All dummy transition packages have nothing in potato that depend on
> them solely (i.e. Depends: perl | perl5 is OK; Depends: perl is
> not). This affects python and a few other things too. [A list?]
>
> 3. XFree 3.4.* included.
As pointed out, a newer XFree86 has been released already.
> 4. Kernel 2.2.1[234567] as default kernel. Source packages have
> gcc272 as compiler in Makefile, and depend on gcc272.
> cfr. discussion on linux-kernel (it's not just union aliasing that
> breaks the kernel on Intel).
New kernel will be selected by boot-floppies, should be 2.2.x by
that time - if boot-floppies are usable.
gcc, I thought our default compiler was some egcs these days. Being
wrong?
> 5. All packages capable of dealing with FHS-compliant file locations
> (i.e. web browsers can find docs in /usr/share/doc; man page readers
> can find man pages in /usr/share/man; info browsers can find docs in
> /usr/share/info; mail programs use /var/mail) as well as the
> FSSTND-compliant ones.
Done or not? I remember seing some bug reports covering some packages
that can't find proper documentation anymore.
> [The /usr/share/doc thing is solved by the tech ctte. decision; I
> don't know where man page and info readers stand. Perhaps "all"
> can be "the most common". Note that the oft-cited "emacs has a man
> command too" issue is bogus, since M-x man uses the man commmand.
> And M-x info has found /usr/share/info for a while, IIRC.]
>
> 6. All packages provide documentation in the same location (either via
> symlinks or real files). Precise method from tech ctte.
Where?
> [/usr/doc for potato. See decision of tech ctte.]
So all documentation goes to /usr/doc and /usr/share/<package> is a symlink
to /usr/doc/<package>?
> 7. glibc 2.1 included on all arches. [m68k still on 2.0? Can't
> remember...]
m68k still has 2.0, can't be changed until potato release. Also MIPS(el)
still has problems with 2.1 so will have to run with 2.0 as well.
> 8. apt 3.x included and relatively stable.
Done?
> 9. All (Depends, Recommends, Suggests) in potato are satisfied within
> potato (+contrib/non-free/non-US), per policy.
>
> 10. Boot floppies that can cope with 1-9.
Regards,
Joey
--
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: