Re: Survey on the use of Debian 2.2 (potato)
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 06:35:34PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Nope. At that time, the security team said "potato will no more be
supported in <put a delay here>". And people complained, a new flame
started ... and they argued about the reasonable delay.
I assume you mean slink. We did ask for feedback. The big reason we
didn't let it go longer was that the infrastructure to do so rapidly
disappeared. Note that half of the architectures were already gone by
the time the 14 Sep 2000 message went out (those machines weren't/aren't
under the control of the security team, and were needed for woody
development, IIRC.)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/debian-security-announce-2000/msg00041.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/debian-security-announce-2000/msg00043.html
Remember the context of my reply, "It [the call for potato feedback]
affirms a change within the project of caring for the concerns of users
outside the project." I did (and do) feel that it's unfair to
characterize the project at the time of the slink-potato transition as
not "caring for the concerns of users". We were severly
resource-constrained, not uncaring.
Today, Joey asks for feedback and everyone will have to accept without
flaming when Joey will say "According to the feedback we had most of our
users have already upgraded to woody, potato support will be dropped in
<put a delay here>".
That's a pipe dream. There will be some segment that complains no matter
what, and no date will be far enough in the future to make everyone
happy.
Mike Stone
Reply to: