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

Re: Vision for the future (was: Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Monday 14 March 2005 19:38, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Both are currently "happening." The current release and security teams
> > say that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump
> > up and prove them wrong by creating
> > stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks and eventually we will have
> > timely Debian stable releases people can trust their jobs on and Debian
> > stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks releases for
> Which end done doing less because they have to duplicate all the
> architecture already in place for tier1, no ?

I believed that to be the point of this whole thread: the people who do this 
work for sarge believe that they won't be able to release etch within any 
reasonable timeframe with the current modus operandi.

A specific example: Security updates.

If they are no more than a regular buildd upload, then doing 
stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks should be possible without much 
effort from the porters.

If security updates are more than a buildd compiling and uploading a new 
source package after a DSA was released, that is a good hint why the current 
security team is burdened by this and why this should be put on porters 

I know that a stable release is more than security updates, but I think the 
argument holds also for other parts: D-I, package selection, RC-bug handling, 
etc ...

In any way I think the effect should not be a fork of efforts but more people 
adding work where it will help the arch reach tier-1 status or realizing that 
the arch cannot fulfil the (vary) high quality standards Debian/stable 
adheres to.

Regards, David
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
 -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15

Reply to: