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

Re: Planned packages for sarge

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:46:15AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> > > Free incentive for d-i to be the default for sarge and done on-time:
> > > any architecture that can't be installed using d-i will be dropped
> > > from sarge N months after d-i is working on i386.
> > Sounds a lot more like a threat than an incentive.
> Before we start again the never ending "Why should 95% of users
> wait for some exotic architechture to catch up", how about releasing
> sarge/i386 when d-i is pretty workable, and other architechtures
> when they catch up?

Uh, those are the same question slightly rephrased, no?

Anyway, the answer is that getting packages so they work on the "exotic"
architectures tends to require changes on i386 as well. It's simply not
feasible to have some people spending their time developing old stuff
for some architectures, and other people spending their time developing
new stuff for i386. Besides which, my laptop is one of those "exotic"

> Or do you seriously think that releasing sarge for christmas 2003
> does good for debian?

That's an independent question, but yes, I think that *is* actually a
good thing. Go read some of the articles about Microsoft's "software
subscription" stuff to see why frequent releases aren't particularly
helpful, and note that Debian tends to stop supporting even security
updates after a few months for obsoleted releases.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpeoKizSr8cJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: