On Jul 23, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 07:38:18PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > On Jul 22, Richard Atterer wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:48:10AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > > And no, sarge will _NOT_ release with boot-floppies. It will use d-i > > > > and/or PGI. > > > ...and that will be the cause for a one-year delay of the sarge release. > > Free incentive for d-i to be the default for sarge and done on-time: > > any architecture that can't be installed using d-i will be dropped > > from sarge N months after d-i is working on i386. > > Sounds a lot more like a threat than an incentive. Perhaps. But I've always said nothing concentrates the mind like a deadline, something sorely lacking most of the time in Debian. Yes, we'd get crap from people for missing our deadlines (like we did for missing the "interpreted-as-a-deadline" May 1 release date), but IMHO a reasonable, achievable deadline is worthwhile. And, realistically, if d-i cannot be ported to a new architecture in N months (where N is a number like 3 or 4), either d-i has failed as a concept or that architecture doesn't have enough active developers to be worthwhile to release for sarge, neither of which is realistically the case for either d-i or the architectures themselves. Maybe it is a threat. (Incidentally, it is the exact same threat/incentive that you and other RMs have used with individual developers who have buggy packages that are holding up the release - hence IMHO it's eminiently fair, just targeted at a different group of developers.) But if $ARCH doesn't have anyone (either a developer or someone in the NM process) who is willing to put in the effort to port whatever arch-specific stuff needs to be done in d-i from boot-floppies, $ARCH is an impediment to progress and probably not worth the project receiving flak until we find someone who can be bothered to do the work. BUT, I don't think we should release sarge for just i386 (or any subset of architectures) when d-i is done. sarge would be supported on the arches with a working d-i and be released for all those arches at the same time. If any arch got on the ball and ported d-i between sarge and sarge+1, a point release of sarge (3.1r1) could target that architecture as well. If it didn't, it'd still be in sid for when someone did decide to get to porting (though I would drop any architecture completely that missed two consecutive full releases). Chris -- Chris Lawrence <cnlawren@olemiss.edu> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Instructor and Ph.D. Candidate, Political Science, Univ. of Mississippi 208 Deupree Hall - 662-915-5765
Attachment:
pgp5k5xe7bWwi.pgp
Description: PGP signature