Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!
On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 07:32:40AM -0700, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > 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.
The reasoning behind the release numbers is more an issue of functionality
in Debian's dist. If Debian 2.2 for i386 sports glibc 2.1 and kernel
2.2.x then I would expect that Debian 2.2 for sparc would have the same
features. Splitting the version increase across archs is not a good idea.
--
----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov> Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. bcollins@debian.org
------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Reply to: