Re: pure64 port visibility
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:39:42PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 10:33:18PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > In order for the pure64 port to be more visible, I opt for the following
> > > thinks to be done by someone who actually has the permissions for it:
> > >
> > > 1. set the development status of the alioth project to either "Mature"
> > > or "Production/Stable".
> > I don't think this is really accurate.
> What milestones do you think we still have to reach before getting to
> that point? I am not saying it should be considered "Mature" but I was
> just wondering what you think we should base our decision on.
I just changed this to "Beta", since I felt that was a resonable tag.
> 1. We are at 93.5% compiled (most remaining packages have FTBFS RC bugs)
> 2. We have a working debian-installer image (I think?)
> 3. ...
3. Wide-spread testing by a large user base for several months (without
serious issues turning up)
> The only major roadblock that I currently know of is the lack of a
> working native 64bit bootloader.
Which kind of suggest that me tagging it "Beta" isn't really accurate,
since there still are parts missing that should be fixed before beta