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

Re: Planned packages for sarge

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:52:44PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> > Sounds a lot more like a threat than an incentive.
> Maybe it is a threat.  (Incidentally, it is the exact same
> threat/incentive that you and other RMs have used with individual
> developers who have buggy packages that are holding up the release -
> hence IMHO it's eminiently fair, just targeted at a different group of
> developers.)  

It's much grander in scope. Removing architectures isn't a trivial thing
to do: it affects whole bunches of packages that were only being kept
around because they were needed for that architecture, makes Debian
completely unusable for a whole range of people and situations, and is
very difficult to change your mind about.

> If any arch got on the ball and ported d-i between
> sarge and sarge+1, a point release of sarge (3.1r1) could target that
> architecture as well.

No way, point releases need to be minor, and adding an architecture is
anything but that.

A more plausible threat, IMO, is "If you don't have a functioning
installer by release, then sure, you'll release, but you won't be
installable when you do." Completely tautological, but still has those
nice black overtones.

But since d-i doesn't work at all yet, that's a bit premature.


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: pgp8yd6lsYPnh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: