Re: stable - yes or no?
Scripsit David Schmitt <david@schmitt.edv-bus.at>
> On Tuesday 15 March 2005 17:08, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit David Schmitt <david@schmitt.edv-bus.at>
>> > If a arch can show that it is able to support a
>> > high-quality-Debian-stable as we all know and love, it can be
>> > promoted to tier-1.
>> Um, isn't the context of this discussion that some of the
>> architectures that (will) have showed this *by being released with
>> sarge* will not be allowed to do the same thing for etch?
> The arches releasing with sarge have been "handheld" by the various
> teams. The teams say they won't do the all the work for all these
> arches for etch - for various reasons (I also can only guess).
And they have also told us that nobody else will be allowed to do this
work unless they do it outside Debian.
> So I have understood it that the porter teams have to show that they
> can fill the gaps.
No, they will not be allowed the opportunity to show this. Read the
plan - it says that only i386, powerpc, ia64 and amd64 will be allowed
to have a testing and stable archive that the porter teams can try
filling.
>> Support from the core teams is not the issue, except insofar as it
>> constitutes "support" to allow stable and testing .debs to exist in
>> the archive.
> "Support" is not only "allowing" it.
No, but the allowing is the point that the porter teams *cannot* do
themselves, and which they are now being denies.
> This also entails e.g. security handling,
> prompt compilation of packages, d-i and kernel work.
Porters *can* do that if they want to have a stable release. But they
will not, according to the plan, be allowed to do it.
>> Of course. But they _are_ saying that if I do it, it has to be outside
>> Debian.
> If you can provide the quality expected of a Debian/stable release, then I
> don't believe anyone would object calling the result Debian/stable.
Then I suggest you read the Vancouver plan that Steve Langasek posted
on debian-devel-announce earlier this week. It's, like, the basis for
this entire thread.
>> I have become too confused to follow whether SCC means tier 2
>> (released, just not widely mirrored) or tier 3 (banned from ever
>> releasing).
> "Not wanting to do the work" != "banned".
The plan says: "Even if you want to do the work, we won't let you".
That's pretty much equivalent to "banned" in my book.
--
Henning Makholm "*Her* sidder jaj & har *ild* bå cigarren
*imens* Pelle Jönsson i Nordnorge har mavepine."
Reply to: