Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:45:10 +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:19AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
[...]
>>
>> 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.
>
Heh, I don't know if I'd used the word "solved". :)
It will certainly be made easier, but we'll still have to deal w/
non-mainstream archs that haven't synched w/ upstream (and the build
failures related to those probably keeping kernels out of testing unless
we forcibly downgrade FTBFS bugs). But yes, it will be quite a relief when
we don't have to track kernels (and bugs on those kernels) generated from
20 different source packages...
>> 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 ?
Also, let's remember that a large part of the problem w/ X was that
upstream did not bother to think about architectures other than x86. I
believe this is no longer a problem w/ xorg.
Reply to: