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


On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:09:32AM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 06:31:19AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > Alternatively, if the boot disks really inspire such apathy from
> > developers, maybe we need to kill them and just steal redhat's.
> I'm an active boot developer and want to point out that using redhat's or
> anybody else's boot scheme is not so simple.  You need to add support for
> other archs like Debian has 

Doesn't redhat come on more than one arch?

> plus all the Deb-specific features we have in boot-floppies.

What features?

On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 11:15:45AM -0700, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 07, 1999 at 07:58:48AM -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> > Question:  Is there any reason why we can't take the current boot disks
> > and stick a new kernel, libc etc. on them.  They won't be as good as the
> > new ones I'm sure but they're quite serviceable IMO.
> Sure there is, they don't properly support the non-x86 architectures. I'm
> specifically concerned about powerpc.  If you released potato without the
> new boot-floppies that I've been working on full-time for my company then
> you would lose a full-time developer.  I'm sure other powerpc/m68k etc.
> developers would feel quite alienated as well.

When I asked about freezing three months ago, the main criticism was that we
didn't have working boot floppies. Now you're saying that the reason we
can't use the old boot floppies is that they don't support powerpc? If
that's the only hold up, we could have released potato already and
frozen *woody* in 2000. (IOW, if a new arch isn't 100% ready it seems a
whole lot more reasonable to not put it in until it's done, rather than
holding up n other archs.)

Mike Stone

Attachment: pgpPvuFhk1ioy.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: