Re: -= PROPOSAL =- Release sarge with amd64
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
>> Thats absolutely counterproductive to the people wanting amd64 support
>> in sarge. They would want to delay sarge as much as possible so amd64
>> support can be added too.
>
> And *that* kind of attitude is counterproductive to *Debian* as a whole,
> and goes completely against our users. I like amd64, I'd like to see it
> in sarge, but I'm certainly not going to encourage people to neglect
> their packages or ask them to not fix RC bugs, or file RC bugs with
> the intention of delaying a much needed release; even if that means that
> release won't include the architecture I prefer.
Neither am I. There is a difference between wanting and doing.
Asking a volunteer to act against his own intrests can not work. Each
person has to way his intrest in getting amd64 into sarge against
getting sarge ready and decide for himself what is more important.
But some people have raised the opinion that sarge without amd64 would be
more damaging than delaying sarge and logically they should not be
helping sarge to release without amd64 but concentrate on
amd64. Asking them to do the reverse is pointless.
>> > Bitching won't help AMD64 to get into Sid faster. Helping out with
>> > things that block the release of Sarge will. AND tends to create a lot
>>
>> How about 200 patches to RC bugs? I think the count for amd64 patches
>> for general RC bugs is around that number.
>
> Bring them up during a BSP so that they can be NMU'd and taken care of,
> I assume there's bugs in the BTS with said patches appropriatly marked
> RC if they're general RC bugs.
See
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitter&data=brederlo%40informatik.uni-tuebingen.de&archive=no
for some examples. All the recent bugs have been for packages that
just got uploaded. They have an active maintainer and the rate of bugs
getting fixed is realy high (only 4 serius bugs over a month old).
The maintainers and BSPs are already working fine there (special
thanks to all BSP attendees).
The patches to port packages (esspecially just adding 'amd64' to the
Architecture field in debian/control) are less well closed. But those
are only important.
>> > more goodwill than whining your ass off does. Make sure that everything
>> > works perfectly, so that a nice slip-in of AMD64 into Sarge r1 will be
>>
>> That only works if amd64 is in sid so it can be tested under realistic
>> conditions and with the right debs. Security wise it is impossible to
>> use the debs from alioth to upload to ftp-master or worse to release
>> sarge r1.
>
> Sure, amd64 needs to go into sid and be fully recompiled prior to
> discussing the possibility of it being released with sarge. This would
> be one of the reasons why the existing GR should be ignored.
Have you seen the rewriten proposal draft I suggested? Haven't seen
comments on it yet and noone has picked it up to write a new revised
proposal. So maybe all the support for the GR has died of now (or it
just got lost in the mass).
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: