> > I strongly disagree with this. There is a need for a set of base > > packages to work, but it's entirely reasonable to have a release for eg > > m68k without KDE or other large package sets. It's not as if debian/m68k > > would be unusable without KDE packages for example. > > You might try to convince me that KDE is architecture-specific :) > That was just an example, but Openoffice.org is architecture-specific and doesn't even run on any 64bit arch. So you never know what upstream does :) > I hope you can agree that we need to say that "almost all" packages that > should be build are build. And I consider 97.5% to be a reasonable > level. Also, if we exclude too much, we might start to ask the question > why we should do a stable release for an arch that builds only a very > minor part of the archive. But the "excluding architecture-specific > packages" gives of course some possibilities which packages count and > which not. > I think we should distinguish between what's really necessary to have a useable release and what is nice to have. It's obviously nice to compile almost everything for all archs. But if upstream is too broken for this to be possible, it might make more sense to leave the broken bits out then to delay everything. > > > > | - the release architecture must have a working, tested installer > > > I hope that's obvious why. :) > > > As long as FAI or even raw debootstrap counts, I can agree here. > > Any installer inside Debian. Of course, we can't tell people "To install > Debian, you first need to install Gentoo" :) > > Sure but manually punching papertape for the upcoming PDP-11 release should be valid :) Cheers, Peter (p2).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature