[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: vancouver revisited

Em Seg, 2005-08-22 às 19:45 +0200, Adrian von Bidder escreveu:
> On Monday 22 August 2005 11.25, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> [ the 'must have a working installer' requirement ]
> > > > Trivial. debootstrap does that.
> > >
> > > Debootstrap is not an installer, in very much the same way that tar
> > > isn't, either.
> >
> > They both are. They can install debian, so it's an installer.
> This is getting silly.  I think nobody debates the fact that some CPUs never 
> had any PC-style machines made and are targetted at the embedded market - 
> yet a Debian port may still make sense.

Getting silly for sure, since the beginning. I think people should stop
acting passionately as if someone was trying to get their arches removed
from Debian and think a little bit.

We're trying to get our release process sane and that's all. Do we
really need a full release arch to support someone using a very small
subset of packages on a tar-installed not-PC-style machine targeted at
whatever market?

Can't we just decide that "this port is useful for these uses but it
makes no sense to bother the release team and increase the complexity of
the release process; the porters are in the best position to decide and
implement whatever 'release' they think is possible and useful"?

Now, stop thinking of this discussion as 'we have to support someone
wanting to install Debian on a matchbox and we need an official release
for that' or as 'someone is trying to remove my arch from Debian'.

Stop and think. Let's all try to get positive and helpful comments in;
or is everyone ok with having a release cycle just like this last one
(sarge) for etch?

kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov>
Debian:  <http://www.debian.org>  *  <http://www.debian-br.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: