Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1
(trimming -release)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > So instead, we have a system where people take individual (or small
> > group) responsibility for a particular piece of software, to take care
> > of it and fix its bugs. This way, we distribute the effort over a large
> > number of people.
>
> The problem is, this often chaotic development system doesn't scale to
> over 1200 developers (including many MIA developers).
I think the only sticking point is determining when someone is actually MIA.
Once it is established that they are MIA, NMUs and adoptions are relatively
painless.
> > If Red Hat ships more of the software the user needs, maybe it is a better
> > choice. Choice is one of the great advantages of free software, after all.
>
> The question is perhaps a different one:
> What is the goal of Debian?
It meets my OS and application needs, and that is all that I ask of it.
> This is not about "free software" or such goals, it's about what
> audiences and niches does Debian target at.
My "target audience" is myself and those around me (employers, co-workers,
family, friends, etc.), and, by way of reciprocity, other Debian developers
and their users.
> I'm not saying this would be immoral or something like that, but e.g. a
> major release without Evolution [2] (currently ages away from reentering
> testing) might make Debian stable unusable for many users - and you should
> be aware of such consequences.
I don't use evolution, so I really haven't concerned myself with this at
all. Some people that I work with do use it, though, so if there is
something bite-sized that I can do to help it along, I would probably do it.
However, evolution has no RC bugs, and is only waiting on dependencies.
It looks like GNOME 2 in general needs either more time or more hinting.
> > I think this is more or less what was proposed in the last release timeline,
> > where major changes in certain packages were frozen at various dates.
>
> There are some problems with the release timeline:
>
> Debian stable is too outdated, it doesn't even reasonable support most
> available new hardware. At least one release [3] every year would be
> required.
You keep saying this, but in my experience it simply isn't true. I
regularly install woody on brand-new Intel systems. Most of the time, the
woody kernels suffice, and when I need some obscure bug fix from a later
kernel, I simply upgrade the kernel rather than dismissing the entire
release as "too outdated".
> Releases are not predictable for the average user. For one year after the
> release of Debian 3.0 there was no statement when Debian 3.1 will be
> released, and the latest announcement that Debian 3.1 will be released on
> December 1st (spread via Debian developers to many users and the press)
> seems to be quite unrealistic - it seems even unrealistic to miss this
> date by only one or two months.
I am a user, and I don't need predictable Debian releases. I would benefit
if they were somewhat more frequent (say, one per year), but there are very
few packages that I find myself upgrading in order to satisfy real needs.
It doesn't bother me in the least that I don't know when sarge will be
release, though obviously sooner is better than later.
I'm typing this from a woody laptop, because it's the only Debian system I
have available at the time. It has a usable graphical environment, with
decent web browsers, development tools and networking facilities. It gets
the job done. I simply don't need the latest GNOME or KDE goodies in order
to be productive.
> What are the unexpected delays in the dvelopment of debian-installer?
I don't think that I implied that there was any particular reason for the
delays; the d-i folks would certainly know better. My impression was that
it simply isn't finished yet.
--
- mdz
Reply to: