Re: Call for a new DPL mediation ... This will be the only thread i will reply to in the next time about this issue.
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:44:41PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > Will there be a working d-i on powerpc without Sven Luther's
> > contributions?
> Yes, there will be. Certainly for the main chrp subarchitecture (which
> includes the powerbooks so many developers use) and hopefully for others
> as well.
Please note that you should say the powermac subarch, as IBM chrp boxes are
currently broken, both 32bit and 64bit, bacause of the partman-prep issue and
the yaboot-installer one. This is one field i intented to work on, and which
has been open since over a couple of months now.
Also, you say i have been replaced, and this means you speak about Colin
Watson, who did and does a great job, but the DPL mail stated that he took
over only the daily builds and a few others, not real porting work. It would
be nice that others like Martin took a more helpful way on this, but frankly i
have doubts, i have been trying to enrole new folk for over a year now, and
had very little help in getting actual help and real commitment, so if you can
find involved people, more power to you. Oh, and BTW, Colin Watson doesn't
even read the debian-powerpc mailing list.
Now, i am curious, did the DPL ever pass to you the compromise proposal i
made to them, and if so, what had you against it. The proposal was :
- i work on minor issues that needs fixing, partman-prep and apus supoprt,
and maybe one other i don't remember now.
- i don't post on debian-boot, and don't interact in issues where i disagree
- you reinstate my commit access, and don't make any more demands on me, and
don't get upset when i state my opinion on other forums where i don't
expect you to be.
This is what i proposed Steve and Anthony; and Steve Langasek declared it
reasonable when i mentioned it to him on #d-d, and it seems to be a proposal
we could all live with, which would profit d-i and debian, and which i don't
see how it could be interpreted as me getting my way. It is a good compromise,
in that both parties make a little step in the other direction, while still
obtaining most of what they want, and everyone is back happyly coding
So, did this proposal reach you, and if so, what where your comments on it ?
> I won't deny that powerpc support may lag behind for some time and it also
> may take some time before we can find additional people willing to work
> on powerpc and especially the other subarchitectures (like prep), but I
> have no doubt that eventually other people will come forward.
I am more doubtful, but more power to you if you can make this happen. You
already told this almost three months ago though.
> Note that a lot (if not all) of the issues that are currently present in
> d-i for powerpc originated when Sven was still the d-i powerpc porter.
Indeed, and where due to me having less time to work on it, and concentrating
more on the kernel side of it (like the exemplar 2.6.14 release, and the
one-day-since-upstream upload process). Let me quote one thing back at you,
from memory, so feel free to correct my wordings back to you :
" we won't bother to fix the obvious breaks on powerpc, because we know that
eventually sven will fix it".