Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
[...]
> [3] http://www.fs.tum.de/~bunk/Debian/freeze
Reading the whole "Future releases of Debian" thread, I thought that
the main idea was that Debian need a more 'readable' status for the next
stable release.
I propose to create a meta-package called 'release-status-sarge' that
depends on packages (with version number) that we want to see in sarge.
Each maintainer has to fill a bug report to include his package in the
next release and explain why the release has to wait for this package
(or/ and this version of the package). We can have different bug level
for the importance to include the package or not.
The release-status-sarge maintainer can then add the package in the
Depends field with the version number and close the bug, or he (she) can
tag the bug 'wontfix' and explain why the package will not be in the
next release. He (or she) can also ask for moreinfo.
Why a meta-package and not a virtual-package?
If we have a meta-package, we can use 'grep-excuse' to see "who we are
waiting for?", in addition with the BTS, it's a lot of informations.
We can also submit other bugs against the release-status-sarge package,
like "Too many RC Bugs" or any other information on why the release is
nt ready yet.
I think Adrian is right when he want more release. I think the idea of
having a Debian release a year is not so bad, but I do not like the idea
of a dead-line for Debian releases. I think that "Next release of Debian
will happen when it is ready" should be a general way of thinking even
in other areas! This does not mean we do not need a strict release plan,
but I prefer to base the release plan on targets, not on dates.
Clear release goals not a release date.
Also, Debian has developed lot of interresting concepts, ideas and
tools, my idea is just to use some of them, no additional development,
to clarify stable release plan and goals to Debian users and even Debian
developers.
Any comments are appreciate, thank you for your time,
Note: I could also call the proposal "Debian Release Unified Goals" but
finally I don't think it's a good idea ;)
-- Arnaud Vandyck
http://alioth.debian.org/users/arnaud-guest/
Attachment:
pgpniadWXfEVD.pgp
Description: PGP signature