Re: stable - yes or no?
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Schmitt <david@schmitt.edv-bus.at>
>
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:57, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >> Scripsit Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
> >>
> >> > This really makes unstable snapshotting, or building stable once it's
> >> > released as Anthony has also suggested in this thread, look like much
> >> > better options than trying to build out of testing.
> >>
> >> Building stable once it is released does look indeed like a good
> >> option. Only it's a pity that the Vancouver plan does not allow it.
> >
> > If a arch can show that it is able to support a
> > high-quality-Debian-stable as we all know and love, it can be
> > promoted to tier-1.
>
> Um, isn't the context of this discussion that some of the
> architectures that (will) have showed this *by being released with
> sarge* will not be allowed to do the same thing for etch?
The arches releasing with sarge have been "handheld" by the various teams. The
teams say they won't do the all the work for all these arches for etch - for
various reasons (I also can only guess).
So I have understood it that the porter teams have to show that they can fill
the gaps.
> > amd64 proves that it is possible to archive
> > potential tier-1 status without much support from the core teams.
>
> Support from the core teams is not the issue, except insofar as it
> constitutes "support" to allow stable and testing .debs to exist in
> the archive.
"Support" is not only "allowing" it. This also entails e.g. security handling,
prompt compilation of packages, d-i and kernel work.
> > Last but not least, nobody can prohibit you from assembling a
> > package pool for $tier-2-arch which mostly resembles Debian/stable
> > tier-1.
>
> Of course. But they _are_ saying that if I do it, it has to be outside
> Debian.
If you can provide the quality expected of a Debian/stable release, then I
don't believe anyone would object calling the result Debian/stable.
> > As far as I understand it, scc.d.o infrastructure is explicitly for
> > such ventures on those architectures that need relativly stable
> > 12-18 month release cycles.
>
> I have become too confused to follow whether SCC means tier 2
> (released, just not widely mirrored) or tier 3 (banned from ever
> releasing). However, as far as I read the plan, it clearly states
> that Debian is to cease providing infrastructure for any other suite
> than unstable (or experimental) for the architectures that are deemed
> unworthy. Andreas Barth later asserted that tier-3 architectures will
> be allowed to have "testing" nonetheless, but "stable" still seems to
> be banned.
"Not wanting to do the work" != "banned".
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Reply to: