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

Re: Are mails sent to xxxx <at> buildd.debian.org sent to /dev/null ?

Wouter Verhelst said:

> When I wanted to test the woody installation on one of my machines (my
> then to-be firewall, a 486 machine), memory requirements were too high
> for that 8MB system, whereas it worked for potato.
> I'd say it isn't anything spectacular that newer systems require more
> RAM. D-i contains a /lot/ of new functionality and usability
> improvements which will also benefit m68k users. That initial versions
> required 32MB of RAM was a pain and made it hard for the m68k port, but
> there have been reports of users successfully installing on (IIRC) 16MB
> m68k systems, even if that installation took quite a while (as in, a few
> days).
> It isn't really fair to be angry at a bug which has long been fixed in
> the mean time.

Why told you that I'm angry about d-i?
I just said that I couldn't test d-i because of the high system
requirements and that I find it strange to say then "oh, nobody tested d-i
on that arch and that was delaying the release" - sure, when the
requirements are that high that the willing people can't test it because
of that reason.

Or you can search the mail archives as well for my mails about testing d-i
or building packages to bring the backlog down. IIRC we had about 400
packages backlogged and I asked (or wondered about) if I should take down
a buildd to test d-i or keep it package building?

It's not that I didn't want to help improving, but it wasn't possible at
that time.

But I'm not angry about d-i. Why should I? I just think that the way how
d-i  was introduced was not so good.
When you call that "being angry" then it's your point of view, not mine.

Ciao...        //
      Ingo   \X/

Reply to: