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

Re: m68k not a release arch for etch; status in testing, future plans?


On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > What are the porters wanted to say? "We want to release with Etch?"
> No, releasing with etch is out of the question -- m68k doesn't meet the
> release criteria.

Well, this means the release criteria have been designed in a way that 
m68k never could have met them anyway, m68k was practically fucked either 
way from the very beginning. This whole process is a charade and was 
pretty much designed to kick out slower ports. :-(

> The question is what to do _instead_.

The point is that m68k gets kicked out _before_ any alternative has been 
implemented. _Any_ m68k work has been in vain from the very beginning and 
the question is now only how some of it can be salvaged...

> > Release m68k with Etch by:
> That's no longer an option. You need to think outside that box.
> Sorry, I know we're talking somewhat at cross-purposes here because
> I've been staring at dak behaviour for years and y'all haven't. You
> need to come up with a way of managing your own testing/stable release
> yourselves, leveraging the work of the release managers/security team,
> but not relying on them to assist you at all.

You are practically declaring that Debian is now a Desktop only 
distribution which will only support GHz machines. Debian has become a 
special purpose distribution and any of the slower ports is doomed in the 
longer term, m68k is just the first victim. Theoretical "release criteria" 
have become more important than its users. If Debian keeps up this 
attitude then there this simply no room anymore for smaller ports.
Outside of the m68k team I have unfortunately not seen any serious effort 
to actually accommodate the needs the smaller ports. Debian has been the 
home for a wide range of users, but that's unfortunately not true any 
longer and Debian should be honest enough to tell its users to go look for 
a new home as they are no longer welcome.
Maybe you should stare at a few other things for a change? I'm not a 
Debian developer, so I'm having a somewhat outside perspective and I'm sad 
to see how Debian has been alienating some of its developers, it seems 
that the developer egoism has become more important than its users and 
some egoisms have outgrown anything else, so they don't leave much room 
for any variety anymore.
Just to be clear, I don't want to pinpoint all the problems or put all the 
blame on you, it's just general rant of the Debian situation from an 
outside perspective and a comment like "That's no longer an option." 
simply pisses me off.

> > Hmmm, I doubt that this work out well. It's just a feeling. 
> > Most m68k users are using stable, I'd say, so a stable release would fit
> > best the needs of our users. Forcing them to use testing might be a bad
> > idea. 
> Having it be a "stable" release means handling security updates for 1.5
> years or more, which can be a significant amount of work, since it has
> to be in addition to the ongoing effort to maintain testing/unstable.

No doubt of that, but how how does a theoretical set of "release criteria" 
automatically ensure this work is done in the future? The only problem 
right now is that m68k is slow and that can't be fixed magically, 
unfortunately I don't see any serious effort to accommodate for these 

bye, Roman

Reply to: