[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports

Ok my suggestions below may be stating the obvious, if so my apologies.

I would suggest, making a list of criteria, that we believe would
constitute a stable release. (I personally don't know enough to say
what that criteria is, and this email thread may be the first step in
creating that list).

Then, at the after the stable change-freeze, I would look and see
where we are. I think the options, in my preferred order of
preference, would be:
1) Fix all the release critical bugs and release as planned. (If this
slightly delays things, and the overall Debian release team is ok with
the delay, I'd say this should be a preference).
2) Go "stable", with a caveat that "stable" for this port differs from
standard debian stable, which has assumptions based on the development
of an OS built on a Linux kernel. Much of what you are doing is
unprecedented, so that some degree of flexibility on creating new
policy as you go should be awarded. e.g. - changing the FreeBSD kernel
during the life of a stable release *MAY* be desirable. Another caveat
to announce would be that this is "first stable" and that as such this
is the first time the port will be introduced to a widespread audience
so there *MAY* be more issues than other stable "ports".
3) See if we can remain in some sort of "stable-candidate" state after
the overall squeeze goes stable, and declare it stable when we are
ready. (I don't know if this is possible under current Debian policy,
but again I would argue that unprecedented efforts, deserve the
opportunity to create new policy). I suspect that if we can assure
that we are either only touching kfreebsd packages, and/or the files
that affect kfreebsd we could find support for this option.
4) Do as you have done in the past effectively skipping squeeze. I
don't think this is a good idea. (If you need me to expound, I can,
but I suspect my opinion here matches the majority).


On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Julien BLACHE <jblache@debian.org> wrote:
> Petr Salinger <Petr.Salinger@seznam.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
>> * openjdk on both kfreebsd-i386/kfreebsd-amd64
>>   man-power is missing, we use gcj similarly as hppa
> gcj 4.4 is currently broken on kfreebsd-amd64 per #576335.
> JB.
> --
>  Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <jblache@debian.org>
>  Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
>  GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 871vae75q0.fsf@sonic.technologeek.org">http://lists.debian.org/871vae75q0.fsf@sonic.technologeek.org

Reply to: