Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!
On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 12:11:05AM -0500, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> > If, for instance, there's a critical bug in some vital package (say, X) that
> > only manifests itself on big-endian machines, the release should and would
> > be held up to fix it. I think you may feel differently if you ponder what
> > would happen if that logic were applied to the i386 version. Everyone else
> > releases, but no i386 release. Could be interesting, don't you think?
> In that case, the i386 version is broken, so don't release it. The others
> are not, so WHY NOT release them? I wouldn't feel at all surprised or upset
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.