[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 12:27:25PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:

> > To me this decision sounds like a very good idea. Catering to some very
> > specialised architectures can be good, but should not be a great burden on
> > the total project. Trying to include everything in one big distribution is
> > inherently not working (as has been shown with sarge). It is very well
> > possible to maintain high quality ports of Debian, and infrastructure is
> > provided for that, without making the release dependant on it.

> But the number of archs is not that huge problem that some people want to
> make us believe. 
> I think the main problem is the general size of the distribution in number
> of packages. You can't get 10.000 packages into a stable shape for a
> release, quite simple.

Can't you?

Removing unimportant buggy packages from testing is *easy* -- much
easier than trying to craft guidelines for declaring a set of "core"
packages.  Getting all of the packages that are considered too important
to release without is *hard*.  Hand-holding an RC bugfix to make sure it
gets built on all 11 architectures is much, much harder.

I know which of these tasks has been eating more of my time for sarge.
Do you?

I'm all about portability, but I also believe it's important in terms of
our release cycle length for the release team to be in a position to set
release standards for architectures, much stricter than the ones we have
in place now.  This proposal represents our first stab at this.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: