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

Re: Bug#238193: use debconf to manage permissions of ls-r not high-priority question

Frank Küster wrote:
> > there are still a number of serious bugs in the base system that need to
> > be ironed out and a few more architectures that need to be hammered into
> > shape for d-i.
> So what does this mean? To me, it is still not clear whether this means
> weeks or many months. Perhaps I could know better if I followed the
> development of d-i closer. But in fact I'd rather spend my time fixing
> bugs in my packages.

If it helps, in the two months between beta 1 of d-i and beta 2, we
added two new architectures. In the two months between beta 2 and beta 3
of d-i, we added support for four new architectures, and dropped
support for one on the floor at the last minute (oops, but it'll be back
in shape next week).

However, since work on all arches has been happening mostly in parallel
except for odd cases like Jeff Bailey who is closley involved in
something like three ports, we are not starting from 0% on the three
remaining architectures. More like 30% for arm and 90% for s390 and
hppa. Things also do become easier to port after the first several
ports, even installers. So I expect our progress to ramp up somewhat
faster than many seem to expect.

see shy jo
(Note that the above is a gross oversimplification, and ignores issues
including but not necessarily limited to subarchitectures, and quality
of hardware coverage within certian architectures. It contains forward
looking statements, and may cause cancer in lab animals.)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: