Re: [buildd] Etch?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:41:32AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > Depends on your point of view. From my POV I can easily miss those
> > > packages on m68k, because I don't use them. Other people won't be able
> > > to live without those ones. It's a matter of what goals do you want to
> > > achieve: release with etch and miss some packages or try to solve all
> > > bugs, but won't be a release candidate.
> > >
> > > As we don't have much time left to fix all those bugs, I'm in favour
> > > of the first option.
> > I'm not. I don't want to go out and say "Yeah, we released something,
> > but it only works if you don't try this or that, because that doesn't
> > work".
> > Either we have a correctly working port and we release, or we don't, and
> > we don't.
> What's the difference? Either you release incomplete, or you are
> incomplete at the deadline and don't release. But either way we must
> complete the distribution post release.
Since most of the problems are caused by compiler issues, what guarantees that
a release-without-packages-that-caused-obvious-problems doesn't contain
non-obvious problems caused by those same compiler issues?
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- firstname.lastname@example.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds