On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:14:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This proposal is, first and foremost, about setting concrete criteria that
> we can hold the ports to for etch, to get away from wishy-washy, "one more
> week for kernel updates on $arch", "$arch2 isn't doing so well, maybe we
> should drop it from testing" problems that the release team is currently
> suffering from. The idea of setting criteria should not be controversial,
> though I can understand that specific criteria we've suggested may be.
True. The specific criteria as have been suggested are most certainly
controversial; but setting criteria for ports to keep up with should not
necessarily be.
It may be a bad idea to suddenly set a whole bunch of criteria at once;
big and controversial changes are not how Free Software in the 'bazaar'
model generally works.
For that reason, why not reduce the whole proposal to...
* The separate mirror stuff is implemented (I don't think anyone has any
problems with that, except for its name which should be 'nybbles'
IMO)
* All ports need to
* build packages within (to be defined) days, on average, of them
getting in the 'Needs-Build' state (this may require applying the
patch by Matthias Ulrichs to wanna-build)
* have some basic UNIX functionality, such as resolving DNS names,
firewall capacity, and some (to be defined) subset of POSIX.
...and address any problems after that as they come up?
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature