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

Re: Debian doesn't have to be slower than time.



On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 09:30:33PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 08:19:03PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com> writes:

> > > Claims that this is impossible don't hold much weight with me, when people
> > > all around us *are doing it*. It is clearly, and observably, possible. Say
> > > that it's more work than you think is worthwhile, if that's what you mean,
> > > but don't claim it's impossible.

> > Oh, I do think it's possible.  I'm not trying to argue against your
> > suggestions, I'm just saying that they don't account for changes that
> > are actually big changes, by assuming that everything will fit.

> > I think you might want to (if you want to revise your proposal)
> > include more discussion about how to handle particular types of large
> > change.

> This is what I tried to address by giving an example of how things *can*
> fit. Nobody has, to date, come up with something that couldn't fit within
> a 4-month release window (IE, the size necessary for 3 releases a year).
> I will accept any example people choose to give, and do my best to show
> how to make it reasonable. If I can't, well then, you'll have a point,
> and the proposal would need modification.

Unicode support at all levels.

I would very much like to see good Unicode support in woody+1, but I 
don't see how this would be possible with a 4-month release cycle.  
Granted, there are some things that can be done in stages, but much of 
that has already been done: woody has tools to Unicode-enable the 
console, x-terminals that support utf8 when passed the right switch, and 
binary-incompatible, unicode versions of various console rendering libs.  
The problem comes when upstream (or Debian) wants the new version of
these libs to ship with UTF8 enabled by /default/; lots of apps would 
need recompiling, and worse, extensive testing to shake out single-byte 
assumptions.

The alternative to doing this in one release cycle is to drag out the 
lifespan of Unicode-specific libs for far long.  Granted, if we could 
get the Debian release cycle down to 4 months, it would be widely 
acclaimed as a miracle, and at that point spreading Unicode out over 2 
releases wouldn't be so bad; but barring miracles, how would you handle 
this issue?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpk_3CVC2qLd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: