Re: Gnome 2.4
<quote who="Sven Luther">
> What you need official woody backports, and that is something i think
> would be good to have, but i am not the one to decide about that, and i am
> not sure our current infrastructure can handle it. It is ready for it, but
> if you consider the considerable amount of network space and bandwith as
> well as the load on the autobuilders, i am not sure it would be
> realsitically doable.
>
> Also, such a project would be better discussed in a post sarge release
> timeframe, in order not to delay the sarge release further than is
> necessary.
On the other hand, it can be done completely independently of Debian
manpower and serverpower, by non-maintainers (cooperating with official
Debian maintainers) who are interested in working with fresh GNOME Desktop
packages on woody for fun or for work.
I'm sure the network of GNOME mirrors would not mind mirroring fresh woody
Debian binaries (I'm one of GNOME's ftp master admins, btw, so this
shouldn't be a horrific challenge).
Give me a couple of weeks. I need to set up an autobuilder for unrelated
work stuff, so I will use that experience to build one for us, to support
the existing woody backports.
Once that is complete, I will attempt to gather hardware/bandwidth donations
from GNOME Foundation sponsors.
The official Debian maintainers won't have to do anything beyond responding
to dependency-related wishlist bugreports, so that *hopefully*, our woody
backports will not require much human intervention at all.
Handy, huh? :-)
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
"I think we agnostics need a term for a holy war too. I feel all left
out." - George Lebl
Reply to: