Re: woody, boot-floppies, and debian-installer projected readiness
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Talking to the release manager, Anthony Towns, in IRC, I learned it is
> his current plan to freeze woody early in January 2001.
>
> I think this is a laudable goal, but unfortunately I think that means
> we need to retain the boot-floppies for woody.
I'm afraid that I agree with you.
> I just don't see how we could have a working and functional
> debian-installer in 12 weeks. 24 to 36 weeks seems more like it (even
> being somewhat optimistic).
We will have a working and functional installer in 12 weeks, at least
that's the plan (6 weeks, actually). But it's not going to cover everything
the boot-floppies can do -- it will have a lot of empty gaps that need to be
filled in. It will probably only install onto a limited set of hardware
(PC's with network cards or something like that, maybe one other
architecture).
> This is seriously bad news for me personally because I was hoping that
> we could wash our hands of the boot-floppies -- and that I in
> particular could wash my hands of bf maintenance and move on to more
> work on the SGML/XML toolchain and Debian documentation.
>
> However, this seems increasingly unlikely.
I'm sorry. :-(
I do agree with AJ, we need to start the freeze with some kind of
almost-fully-working installer. It doesn't look like the new system will
be it. I'd like to at least get the new installer mentioned in the
documentation somewhere as an option for the limited set of installs it
will be able to perform. With any luck, since we *won't* be freezing the
new installer in January, this set will grow somewhat by the time the
Debian freeze finishes, and enough people will opt to use the new installer
that it gets some serious testing. Of course we don't want to confuse people
by offering two installers, so the pointer will have to be worded
carefully.. Does this sound reasonable?
Since this list will be needed for discussion related to boot-floppies, I
wonder if we should break the debian-installer traffic out into a
separate list?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: