Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:45:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
> > did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
> > architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
> > everyone turned on a platter and presented this fait accompli?
> To be fair, there were some comments to that effect from some of the
> relevant people beforehand. For example, Joey Hess raised concerns
> regarding the load placed on the d-i developers in some of the recent
> "too many arches" threads.
Well, someone[TM] decided somewhen[TM] that d-i is mandatory for sarge.
Of course a completely new implementation of an installer consumes a *lot*
of work, and I think everyone appreciate the work so far done, but I think
that work needs to be done just once, mainly.
For example it's very unlikely that m68k will dramatically change their
numbers of supported hardware. So the future work load should be fairly
limited to keep m68k installable by d-i (except for newer kernels and such,
but that needs to be done anyway).
Therefore I think d-i should be kept out of discussion for this.