Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:24:06PM +0100, Aurélien Jarno wrote:
> > What about partial mirroring to address space problems? What about a
> > team for wanna-build so that help and machines are not refused anymore?
> > What about a team for buildd so that there is always an admin available
> > at a given time?
> >
> > Maybe it doesn't work, but at least we have to try, before dropping
> > arches. Because it's clear that SCC arches will be dropped sooner or
> > later, if they are considered by debian-developers as "secondary arches".
>
> What about the *massive* issues with releasing d-i due to syncing on all
> arch's? What about the various arch-specific kernel issues that have popped up
This will be solved in etch, or even as soon as sarge is out of the way, when
we will have a single kernel-source package that will generate all binary
kernel packages. This kernel-package could also build the binary .udeb
modules, and all the d-i related kernel problems will vanish in one go.
I believe the kernel team to be commited and well working (and full of loving
relationships or whatever :), to handle this well.
> and the problems in getting people to make all the necessary fixes? What about
> the huge problems in getting a decently new release of X in to Debian because
> of constant porting problems?
And we are proud of the quality of our X packages, are we not, and would we
reach this quality without the input of the many porters we are going to let
out in the cold ?
> What about the heavy burden on the security team?
Which could (or has ?) been solved with the woody auto-build infrastructure
for security ? Was this not why woody was delayed 3 month ?
> The problems extend beyond the mirrors and the buildds.
But which problems ? there has not been a concise description of said
problems, nor of which of those will be solved with the drastic steps
preconised.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: