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

Re: redefining priorities for 3.0r1



Hi,

On Tuesday 24 July 2007 14:39, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Holger Levsen]
> > IMO we should aim to^w^w release 3.0r1 in a month, even if only/mostly
> > with documentation fixes (though other fixes are fine too). Then r2
> > another month later. And then concentrate on lenny.
> I believe this is too short time frame to manage much improvements,
> especially since we have spent a lot of time on the r0 time frame, and
> I suspect others like me will have to spend time on other projects
> that has been waiting for a while.

You were right: now two months have passed and we still haven't released 
r1 :-/ :-)

Time to tackle it a bit more ;)

[priorities in bugzilla]
> > What do you think?
> I liked your previous proposal better.

I'm writing this offline and replying to this makes most sense while looking 
at bugzilla, which I currently cant...

> For r1, I want to
>  - Upgrade the debian-cd build framework to the latest svn version.

has that happened?

>  - Include a windows installer on the CDs and DVD.

you mean like the one debian has for lenny now? has anyone looked into using 
this on etch?

>  - Include on the DVD some Windows install packages for useful Windows
>    software (OOo, Firefox, etc).

I don't think this has happened and I don't consider this important. There 
are "free software-cds for windows", why bother to create another?

>  - Update the documentation.

This still needs to be done, content-, translation- and packaging wise.

>  - Find a way to check the SSL certificates when talking to the LDAP
>    server, and fix lwat and samba to work with the new setup.

has that happened?

>  - Update libpam-foreground to a clean backport from sid/lenny instead
>    of our home patched version.

I think this has happened, correct?

>  - Change the task installation framework to handle language specific
>    list of packages to install.

has that happened? 

>  - Update the network-manager packages to use a backport from unstable
>    to fix some console user access issues. (And only install it in
>    standalone and not workstation+laptops installs)

has that happened?

Anything else (besides highprio bugs) we need to fix before we can release r1?


regards,
	Holger

Attachment: pgprhsDVkTK08.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: