Re: Some proposals
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> I think this will just lead to a bloated archive. It will be much easier
> to add a pkg that containts informations from apt-get.org
Ah but much easier for who? Think like a user not a developer.
> or able to build
> an unofficial CD out of it.
>
unofficial or official doesn't matter too much as long as it is available.
> I believe this will only create a lot of confusion. From the most simple
> package that get 2 different fixes from 2 different developers that did
> not coordinate the job to whatever can be. Things will really break badly
> if for any reason one of the thousand DD will not coordinate correctly
> with all the others.
>
Any project with more than 1 developer can face such problems. There are
ways to deal with it. And any developer who doesn't play nicely with
others will swiftly find himself getting kicked out.
> We have policies to handle this situtation. Quality does not neceserrary
> means speed.
>
Sometimes things that need to be done don't get done quickly not because
they are hard but because of a lack of time. Can we leverage our ~1000
developers to improve this?
> probably this might work for a core team, because composed of relativly
> few developers. What about teams that have to deal with tons of pkgs?
> communication might become an issue and personnaly i would not like to see
> my pkg NMU'ed just because i wasn't able to be in front of my computer for
> half day. Of course this is an "exagerated" situation but it is a
> situation that can happen. How would you handle that?
>
People would have to use common sense. If it is just a dependency error
or due to a typo (like a bug that was reported on webmin-postgresql
yesterday) why would you mind if someone did an NMU? Yes, if they wanted
to add an intercal interpreter or something they would contact you first
just like now.
> > Proposal: Stop releasing altogether
>
> I understand what you mean but it looks in contrast with what you told
> before about releasing on regular dates. the quality process will not
> benefit from this-
>
Btw I should have mentioned at the beginning that all the proposals are
unconnected.
It is an acknowledgement that different people want different--often
contradictory--things from Debian. If they are sufficiently motivated
they might make releases on a regular dates, or maybe by some other
criterion.
> > sid would be the only Debian distribution.
>
> Why? everyone outside has stable and development branches.
>
It would be upto various release teams (commercial or volunteer) to decide
when the packages they are interested in should be deemed stable.
> > Other companies/interested
> > groups of people would be responsible for putting out finished products on
> > whatever schedule suited them.
>
> Based on what?
Whatever they are interested in.
> sid gets updates on a daily base, saturday and sunday
> included. Do you expect companies to track the archive of 12000 pkgs every
> day and be able to take out a stable snapshot?
Yes.
> If you think they will
> produce a "testing" release then you are just asking to other people to
> duplicate their efford to produce what we already have centralized and
> tracked. I see only many testing branches produced by others and too many
> possible forks of Debian work.
We already have forks of Debian: xandros, libranet, any person who ever
recompiled the KDE packages to provide MP3 support, etc.
But I'm thinking of forks along another axis. Some people never install
Debian scientific packages, some people never install textmode games etc.
> I personally think that it will only
> produce more and more confusion between end users.
>
There already is. Look at the post that started the "Debian is doomed"
thread.
> > The debian projects role would be to
> > produce the packages, and provide infrastructure (BTS, policy, installer.)
> > Does this this sound unworkable?
>
> In my opinion it cannot work. Just for the BTS. ex 2 comanies that produce
> their own "stable/testing" release with different libs for a certain pkg
> and start submitting bugs on our BTS. how the maintainer/s are supposed to
> handle that?
>
They would have to help in the maintainence if they changed things. But
if they just excluded packages, the situation is the same as now.
> > Look how many specialized Knoppix
> > knockoffs are beginning to bloom. Look how many people try Linux From
> > Scratch.
>
> .. and how many of them come back to Debian? ;-)
>
Maybe lots. But not all of them. And some bypassed Debian altogether and
went straight to them.
> This is partialy true for "normal users". I would never do that on a
> server installation. I love to be sure that my "real woody" will not
> break because done in a hurry due to a dead line forced by someone that
> probably have no idea of quality means.
>
So you and other people who have the same needs would get together and
make a server version. Right now a release critical bug in frozenbubble
can halt the release of your server OS. Does that make sense?
> > Proposal: Make all the people who talk but aren't going to do anything
> > shut up.
>
> <bofh> so where can i find a url for the work have you done until now to
> implement such proposal??? </bofh> :P
>
Well thats what the ... was for. :) An acknowledgement that in the end
I'm just going to go along with whatever those who actually do the har
work decide. I hope the whiners think about that too.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@debian.org>
La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
Reply to: