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

Re: Debian versioning scheme (r1 vs .1)

On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 05:51:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:26:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > There are four options at present:
> > 	* make boot-floppies (the installer we've always used) work
> > 	* make PGI work
> > 	* make debian-installer work
> > 	* write something else new
> > Each of these have a fairly vast array of problems, and debian-installer
> > is the only one that has people actively working on fitting it into
> > Debian, as far as I'm aware. (From what I've seen, it's intended more
> > as something third parties can use to install Debian, than something
> > for Debian itself; I'm happy to be corrected on this)
> Debian-installer is intended more as something third parties can use to
> install Debian, than something for Debian itself?

Doh. Yes, I meant "From what I've seen, _PGI_'s intended more...".

> If you meant PGI, then you're wrong.  PGI has never been intended as
> something for use "more" by third parties.

Well, for it to be used by Debian, it needs to be able to be "built" by
Debian, to be put on our official CDs, and to support all the machines
we intend to support. AFAIK, the current situation with PGI is that it's
essentially as hard to build as boot-floppies was (in that it needs to
grab copies of a whole bunch of .debs from the archive, then put them
together into an image using features the autobuilders don't provide
on a machine running the target architecture), and actually makes this
marginally more of a problem by depending on more things (like X). 

Given that no one's seemed particularly interested in making PGI easy
to build -- and that it's a hard thing to do -- then I'm continuing
to assume that it's intended for people for whom that's not an issue,
which, as far as I'm aware, are third parties.

Which isn't to downplay what you've done at all -- from all reports PGI's
unsurpassed as a Debian installer where it's suitable -- but rather to
say that as things stand, PGI's not an answer as far as getting sarge
out any sooner is concerned.


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.''

Reply to: