Re: Some thoughts about problems within Debian
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 05:55:38PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I certainly didn't want to diminish the work you're doing, but I still think
> we have to find better ways to release. potato is too old right now and most
> people I do talk to, tell me they don't care about all these packages, but
> they want newer versions of the packages they use.
Two responses: first, if they don't want new packages, just newer versions
of the stuff they "use", that'd presumably exclude things like, oh,
say, KDE... So you've got to be a little careful there. Second, most of
the problems are with the newer versions of old packages:
apache: 126707, 126743
apt: 127648, 127942
iproute: 118424, 119601, 123224
ld.so: 97071, 102055
postgresql: 118362, 121088
slapd: 112499, 126898
tripwire: 90912, 92510, 94603
...are a sample of pakcages that seem reasonably "standard" to me that
are in the RC bug list. You'll note some of those bug numbers are around
a year old.
> Yes, I know that if we
> take all those people we probably have 99% of the packages belonging into
> someone's core, but the age is a factor.
No, I don't dispute that looking at core packages is worthwhile: it is;
all I'm saying is that once we actually get to the point where those core
packages are releasable, the rest of the work (getting rid of unreleasable
extra packages) isn't much of a problem. And converesely: if we don't
get all the base/standard bugs fixed, there's nothing anyone can do
to make us release any quciker, unless we're willing to just release a
bunch of junk with known security problems that doesn't upgrade cleanly
and whatever else.
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
The daffodils are coming. Are you?
linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia