Re: Debian Installer
On Mon, Sep 16, 2002 at 02:32:11PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> <asbestos> While I happily go along with the majority, I personally think
> it would be wise for the Hurd to have an independent release cycle,
> starting at Debian GNU/Hurd 1.0, for example.
> 1. This would mean that different arch's would be added when ready without
> undue pressure.
> 2. New features based on the Hurd's flexibility can be incorporated when
> I suspect that once the Hurd has been officially released we would want
> the following releases to follow quickly, say every 3 - 4 months for a
> year or two. </asbestos>
Let me argue that it would be extremely advantageous to track
Debian's release cycle. New features and such can always be added to
unstable; but trying to fork off "stable" releases from Debian at a rate
faster than Debian itself is just asking for a lot of pain.
If we want to spawn GNU version 1.0, that's fine; since those
people don't have to deal with other developers changing things beneath
them. But in Debian, a lot of infrastructure has to be in the right
place at the right time before a release can ever occur. (Just witness
the recent libpng, libstdc++ and Perl goodness.)
Besides, on a personal note, I am quite enamored by the fact
that I can sit down to any Debian hamm/slink/potato/woody machine and
expect it to work exactly like any other hamm/slink/potato/woody
machine. Having independant releases would break that universality that
we get with the "Universal Operating System."