[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 09:54:49AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> It is not unstable that I am (most) worried about.
> It is the lack of any possibility of a stable release that concerns me.
> Even if the people for a given arch were to build a stable etch, it
> would have no home in Debian, would suffer from being out of the loop on
> security updates, etc.

Well, we do know the security team needs help. What I'd love to see is each
port have someone on the security team to handle their specific bugs, binary
builds and testing. That might scale better and decrease the overall load on
the team. This is all in line with what seems to be the central thesis of the
proposal: shift more of the core burden to the porters. Of course, this does
demand a lot, but the burden has to go somewhere, and the people currently
carrying large portions of it are saying they can't do this any more.

> > 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.
> That still doesn't solve the problem of security updates, for one, and
> archive space, for another.

Agreed on the archive space, but I don't know what to do about that. One thing
that we've seen lots of is people happy and willing to donate buildd's for
their pet arch. I'd imagine those could be converted to package pool space and
such. The bandwidth issue I have no answer for though.

 - David Nusinow

Reply to: