Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!
ACK!!! So what your saying is that Debian should wait for
all (currently up to speed) distros to be ready for release
before releasing ANY distro?
So...we wait on a i386 version to be released because there
are some major new hardware issues to work out on the spar
version..so we wait 4 months to release a version???
(not saying sparc has these issues...just using an example)
I personally think we need to treat each port differently. As
each one will have it's own issues. Yes, the source distro is
different and contains all of them...but maybe that needs
to be re-thunk (uhh) on how it should be handled. But I don't
think holding up the release of other ports due to one port
not being ready is a solution. That would definatly cause
Debian to get behind at some point in time or another.
I understand that some people disagree with this...(as you do) thinking
that Debian is a combination of all the ports...I think by going with
this strategy we are just trying to tackle a huge problem, instead of
breaking it down into smaller ones. Just think if Linus tried to
(as he once did) keep up with all the different programs that were
out there for Linux...do you think the kernel would have suffered?
Yes it would have..big time. If we want to have all ports released
at the same time, we need to rethink the process. We need to figure
out how in the hell we could ever make it happen. One port could
be done months before the others...(or on a rare occasion all at
the same time). Each port will have it's own issues. Why hold
up the release of one port...making all the users of that port wait
...so that another port can be finished.
This will only lead to rushing the completion of any port that
get's behind. People will be working harder and faster to try
to catch up with everyone else and they will start missing things.
Causing only bigger problems.
Just my two cents. (doesn't amount to much...but it's all I got)
:)
Ivan
On Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 11:17:43PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> No, that's not proper either. Debian is a set. Hamm was a multi-CD set:
> i386, m68k, contrib, sources, etc. Debian is not Debian if it's missing for
> a particular platform. (Again, exceptions for platforms just starting out
> and truly not ready for release.)
>
> In my mind, releasing some archs without the others is just as bad as
> releasing, for instance, i386 with everything except XFree86. You're
> missing a big chunk, one that should be present.
>
> Also don't forget that the source CDs contain source for *all* archs. It
> may not be possible to get accurate source CDs if different archs are
> released at different times, putting Debian and CD vendors in the position
> of violating GPL. Bad, bad, bad.
>
> > But it worries me when the groups get overzealous about their "rights" as a
> > port. Why on earth would you want to hold up slink/i386 just because
> > slink/sparc is broken? They're two totally different dists. And it's just
>
> No, see you're missing the point. The point is that they're all Debian.
> Debian is not just one platform; it's *all* platforms. If you break it up,
> you lose something -- something important.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
---end quoted text---
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ivan E. Moore II Rev. Krusty
http://www.tdyc.com rkrusty@tdyc.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstien
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
GPG KeyID=0E1A75E3
GPG Fingerprint=3291 F65F 01C9 A4EC DD46 C6AB FBBC D7FF 0E1A 75E3
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply to: