On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Franklin PIAT wrote:
> I guess you already had some discussions on whether it should be
> emphasized that "Etch-n-Half is _not_ like any other point release
> because it adds hardware support".
IMHO that's a sales-pitch that can also be over-emphasized.
"He world, look what Debian is doing now! We're supporting NEW HARDWARE in
a stable release!"
Of course, we do need to advertise the fact, but IMO the release notes and
installation info on the website are not the place to do that; those
should mainly be factual. Things like the release announcement, DPN and
times.d.n are much better suited for "promotion".
> (At the same time, I understand that we want to emphasize it's like any
> Debian point release : "It's stable ; It won't break your system ; It
> was designed on `opt-in` not `opt-out` fashion").
I think the last (opt-in) is sufficiently emphasized.
> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 05:25 -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > http://people.debian.org/~fjp/tmp/etchnhalf/
>
> * "is essentially just the most recent point release for etch"
> Of course this will have to be updated once 4.0r5 is released
> but I like the phrasing otherwise.
> Let me rephrase this as a question : Is EtchnHalf equal to
> 4.0r4 or is it any Etch>=4.0r4 with some updated driver ?
It will be any Etch>=4.0r4. Any Etch+1/2 images will always install the
then current point release.
> * "[use] the current release of Debian Installer for lenny"
> Do qe really mean "current", or the "beta 2" ?
I really mean current.
Especially the netboot ("other") images are guaranteed to break with the
next D-I release (which will probably be Lenny RC1) because it will be
using a different kernel which causes a skew between kernel udebs in the
D-I initrd and kernel udebs downloaded later (these are downloaded from
testing!).
For the netinst two update moments are relevant:
- on future Etch point releases (to get updated base system: required)
- on Lenny D-I releases (for consistency with the other installation
methods for etch+1/2 as explained above: optional).
The fact that netinst images do need to be rebuilt for Etch point releases
means that they will then also automatically get the then current D-I
release in testing, which makes the last "optional" rather silly.
The businesscard images will change as well because they are just links to
current Beta2 CD images. I guess we could conceivably copy those to a
different location, however given the facts of life for the other images
that seems unnecessary.
> * Can we add some hints to explain why netinst seems the best
> the pick, but it's only available for amd64 and i386.
Right. That should be added. Will do so on the "installing" page.
Note that other arches could be added to that but AFAIK we've not had any
requests to do so. See [1] for prior discussion.
> Finally, I would like to reuse/refactor the wiki page EtchAndAHalf
> to list FAQ/Frequent problem, à la Sarge2EtchUpgrade.
> As usually, links to official release notes would be available at the
> top of the page to avoid duplication of content.
I'd like to note two other concerns: fragmentation of information and
translations. The website can be updated as well and is much better at
getting good quality translations. IMO important errata should be listed
there and not in the wiki. The "installing" page already has provisions
for adding those.
Cheers,
FJP
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-cd/2008/02/msg00007.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.