Frank Küster wrote: > > there are still a number of serious bugs in the base system that need to > > be ironed out and a few more architectures that need to be hammered into > > shape for d-i. > > So what does this mean? To me, it is still not clear whether this means > weeks or many months. Perhaps I could know better if I followed the > development of d-i closer. But in fact I'd rather spend my time fixing > bugs in my packages. If it helps, in the two months between beta 1 of d-i and beta 2, we added two new architectures. In the two months between beta 2 and beta 3 of d-i, we added support for four new architectures, and dropped support for one on the floor at the last minute (oops, but it'll be back in shape next week). However, since work on all arches has been happening mostly in parallel except for odd cases like Jeff Bailey who is closley involved in something like three ports, we are not starting from 0% on the three remaining architectures. More like 30% for arm and 90% for s390 and hppa. Things also do become easier to port after the first several ports, even installers. So I expect our progress to ramp up somewhat faster than many seem to expect. -- see shy jo (Note that the above is a gross oversimplification, and ignores issues including but not necessarily limited to subarchitectures, and quality of hardware coverage within certian architectures. It contains forward looking statements, and may cause cancer in lab animals.)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature