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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:23:54AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > Basically, you're just leaving a number of Debian users out in the
> > cold. Users who choose Debian because we were the only distribution
> > out of there to provide serious support for the architectures they
> > care for, for various reasons.
> Indeed.  I am one such user.  I have always felt fortunate that I don't
> have to really care what architecture a machine is, because "of course
> it runs Debian".  I have run Debian on Alpha, x86, amd64, powerpc, and
> sarc systems, both as a desktop and a server environment on most of
> these.
> Here's a key point: the utility of Debian on x86 is greatly diminished,
> for me, if I can't run Debian on alpha (or arch x) also.
> Why?  Because having an environment that works exactly the same across
> multiple architectures is a Good Thing.  If I will no longer be able to
> achieve that, then Debian on x86 becomes seriously less useful, because
> now I'll have to maintain some Debian machines and some Gentoo machines
> or something.  It would be easier for me to just maintain all Gentoo
> machines.

I'm pretty amazed that people are saying that without being an FCC that their
arch will simply die. I don't understand why the porters, who've been so quick
to point out that they'll host and maintain buildd's, aren't willing to simply
track unstable and set up their own buildd network for their port. The m68k
guys did it. So did amd64. dak is now in the archive, and sbuild has been there
for ages. Quite frankly, I'll be shocked if m68k or anyone else doesn't make
their own etch release within days of the official one.

> > I feel sad today, I feel it is a sad day for the Project.
> I agree, and I too am quite sad that a number of DPL candidates signed
> off on this without asking hard questions about it or even putting it
> out for discussion and feedback first.

I disagree. I dislike the cabalistic feel of this whole thing, but it's a step
forward that needs to be taken, and I don't think anything would have moved
otherwise. I trust this group of people to know what they're doing, since
they've demonstrated their abilities and value time and again. I'm very happy
about this proposal.

 - David Nusinow

Reply to: