Re: Release management and package announcements
J. H. M. Dassen writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
>[Ian Murdock writes:]
> > From: Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > I think we should start with an a.out 1.0 tree. This will give us a
> > bleeding edge tree straight away, and we can then use our incremental
> > upgrade mechanisms to make the 1.0 tree move towards ELF.
> > Okay--I'll agree with this. Are there any major objections?
> No. As long as the library moves, and the move to ELF as the default
> binary format for development get high priority, thus enabling the
> developers to make their move to ELF ASAP.
I think this is the best way to get people to move to ELF: let them do
it gradually, and with a way back out if it turns out to be a problem.
(This has been one of the major problems with the Linux ELF move
generally - there doesn't appear to be any easy way for most peoplt to
This way we can get all the developers using ELF tools and producing
ELF packages ASAP.
Bruce Perens writes ("Re: debian-1.0 "):
> email@example.com said:
> > it might create problems for the mirrors.
> I think that while it is in its current state, 1.0 should not be where
> mirrors will find it unless they are explicitly looking for it. That
> means put it under private/project or something. We can have a few designated
> mirror sites for it in various places, but we certainly don't need as many
> as are currently mirroring 0.93R6 .
I disagree. I think that 1.0 should be created immediately as a copy
of 0.93R6, and put into public view.
1.0 is going to be our bleeding edge release, and we want adventurous
people to come and test it and report the bugs. This will help us
find the integration problems &c before we have the whole user
community jumping on us. It'll also make it much easier when we want
to release it - we can just repoint a few symlinks, rather than upset
all the mirrors again.