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

Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!

On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 12:31:30AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 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???
> If this is the case, sparc would not have been frozen.

It was just an example...if both ports (or all ports) are 
frozen at the same time...then they should be released at
the same time...

> Not that we're not already behind.  Really, I don't think it would matter.
> It's always annoying to find that when RedHat/x86 is at 5.1, RedHat/Sparc is
> at 4.2.  There are nasty compatibility issues, and obviously Sparc is a
> second-class citizen at RedHat.  I don't want this to happen to Debian. 
> Debian is bigger and better than that.  Debian is a full system that can be
> run on different architectures, not several different systems that happen to
> be hosted at the same FTP network.

It annoys me a bit...but would annoy me more is if they had released 
RedHat/sparc 5.1 and it was as buggy or more than the RedHat/x86 5.1 ver.

Debian is bigger.  I agree...and I think that Debian needs to make sure
that they release stable code..which they do.  But a release number is
just that .  a release number.  If the sparc version or the mips version
or whatever, starts out later than another, it shouldn't be required
to be up to speed with the other ports.  That would make sure we are
behind.  Each platform should be considered independent as each has
it's own requirements.  

> > 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
> How would this ever happen?

Do we want it to happen?

> > 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.  
> If there is such a problem with a port, which has not occured in any port
> that is ready to be frozen or released, then perhaps the decision could be
> made then.  You seem to be forgetting that not all of our ports get released
> yet.

I am not forgetting that all ports have been released...I was just going
on what the thread was and post my viewpoints before something like this 

I am just concerned that we are setting ourselves up for a fall.  Like
RedHat has done before.   


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: