Re: [buildd] Etch?
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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
Was there ever a release with no bugs? No known bugs?
I thought it was a question of having no release-critical bugs?
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- email@example.com
> 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