Re: Weirdness in "apt-get upgrade"
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 12:12:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:53, Colin Watson wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:41:05AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> > > Isn't the issue regarding "a better way to do security releases"
>> > > one of the big reasons why v3.0 hasn't been released yet?
>> >
>> > Correct, and there's substantial work on the build daemons happening at
>>
>> That's to make the builds across all 85 platforms run more
>> smoothly, i.e. to get them out in a more timely manner?
>
> Yes. I've had to do the odd security update of my own packages in the
> past, and I had to build packages for every architecture by hand.
> Finding Debian-administered machines of the right architectures on which
> the right build-dependencies are installed is a pain - and that was on
> six architectures rather than the eleven that are going to release with
> woody. (In fact, back then I couldn't get access to a suitable m68k
> system at all, and I had to wait for one of the security team to sort
> that out for me.)
I'm curious if there are any usage statistics out there regarding
Debian's ports. I would guess that at least 99% of all Debian users
use maybe 2 of those ports. Who here has even heard of SuperH?
It seems silly that Debian spends so much time and effort on so many
ports, and consequently delaying the stable release for months, when
so few people actually use the ports. If it takes so long and is such
a pain to build packages on ancient archs like m68k, why not just
release i386 now and release the other ports later when they're ready?
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: