Re: Potato revision 1
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:24:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm going to blithely assume the -cd and -boot and any other interested
> folks are watching.
>
> Here's what I'm thinking for r1, anyway. I'm thinking a timeframe of
> a couple of weeks, so around the last week of September and the first
> week of October.
>
> I'm thinking we'll want to include:
> * recompiled binaries on, eg, arm that were out of date or ususable
The autobuilders are currently not running on proposed-updates; no one
has had time to address this issue. We want to find a way to deal with
this - it may mean creating 2.2r1 in two steps (allowing a day or
two to autobuild and then adding that second wave to stable) if no one
addresses the quinn-diff issues. Either that or an awful lot of
concerted effort to build the necessary packages by hand, once we have
a list.
> * any bug fixes the boot-floppies people have come up with
>
> * new boot-floppies / base.tgz's for all arches to match the fixes
> and any base package updates
>
> * source updates to some base packages like xviddetect (these'll
> need to be recompiled on all architectures, and done before
> boot-floppies are rebuilt)
>
> * source updates to various packages that had known important
> bugs that were fixed too late for r0 (these'll also need to
> be recompiled for all architectures)
>
> * updated release notes
For one thing, here's another vote to add in mozilla M17 - this is of
the general "it won't be any more broken" class.
More importantly to me, I will have a new yaboot package in a day or
so, which will need to go into stable - I'll be adding dbootstrap code
for it too, hopefully, and make the powerpc port able to make hard
disks bootable again.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| dan@debian.org | | dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: