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

Re: 2.3.6 report

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:07:04PM -0700, David Whedon wrote:
> > All in all the errors are mostly cosmetic.  I hope we move to quickly freeze
> > base because boot-floppies are ready for it.
> That's not going to happen particularly quickly, because -testing *isn't*
> ready for it, because they haven't had a chance to get into the swing
> of things, because they haven't had boot-floppies they can try out and have
> kind-of work. (2.3.5 came close, but we followed within a day or two by
> groff and man-db breaking)

I have to say, you're logic is rather backwards.

Pretty much *every* reported problem about the installation I've seen
as far back as 2.3.4 has nothing to do with boot-floppies themselves
and everything to do with immaturity and instability in base and the
testing distribution in general.

For you to turn around and say that base isn't frozen because
boot-floppies isn't ready just isn't true... We've been ready.  YOu do
have to expect that base change has to happen *prior* to a
boot-floppies which accomodates it.  And furthermore realize that
there's about a 4-8 day lag on when the change occurs (for instance,
new debootstrap) and when the new b-f that uses that is available.

If Debian is willing to purchase for me fast machinery (i386
preferred) with fask disk and full exclusive root access, i could
probably do the i386 builds myself much more quickly.

Please please please --- lets get base frozen and stop pointing the
finger at boot-floppies.  Boot-floppies maturity has exceeded Potato
already for 2 releases now.  It's base and debootstrap which is still
lacking maturity.  And a frozen base will obviously make that maturity
a little easier to achieve (less of a moving target).

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onshore.com.....<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>

Reply to: