Re: Releasability of the kFreeBSD ports
* Aurelien Jarno (email@example.com) [100804 19:15]:
> From the server point of view, I think we reached something close to
> other debian-ports, with even some added features like ZFS. On the other
> hand I have to agree that on the desktop point of view, there are still
> problems, which may break the expectations users have from a stable
> release. The desktop is usable though.
This sounds like something that needs to be documented in the release
notes (or other accompying documentation).
> > If it's not entirely up to our standards, would a separate suite, like it
> > has been done in the past for sarge-amd64 and etch-m68k, help having some
> > sort of release that can be updated independently from the main stable
> > release? Such a suite could also be useful to land larger changes than
> > normally allowed for stable.
> > Or do you think we should skip this release? (But keep it in testing, of
> > course.)
> Doing a release, a "technology preview" or something that offer a
> consistent port with security updates to the users will definitely help
> the port by attracting more users and possible developers. I am open to
> any form of "release".
Doing something else than a technical normal release has to pay some
price. So, I think we should stick with that, unless there is an
advantage we get from another form.
Of course, it makes sense to put the label "technology preview" (or
similar) on the kbsd-ports of the squeeze release. But that's a
non-technical difference (and yes, I don't think the ksbd ports will
in all aspects be far enough at the time of the release), not a