Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:05:15AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:06:15PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > [1] The installer might be a point, but since all sarge architectures
> > > will have a working installer and I hope there's not another
> > > installer rewrite planned for etch this shouldn't be a big issue.
> >
> > This is still an issue. Joey Hess's mails have indicated very clearly that it's
> > difficult to get an installer release out even when all arches are already
> > supported.
>
> This is a non-issue. The main problem was the kernel situation, which will be
> streamlined for etch into a single package, and maybe build issues, which
> could be solved by a separate build queue or priority for d-i issues.
You know, you keep saying this and I have a really hard time
believing it, although I don't follow the kernel list so please
enlighten me if I'm wrong.
If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures
that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take
care of that more easily. That's awesome.
But then you'll be trading off for the same problems that every
single other packge faces: namely that if a kernel on a single arch
has an RC bug then it affects the kernels on every arch. This strikes
me as being very problematic, and the only way I see around it is
to downgrade actual RC bugs, which isn't really a solution at all.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: