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

Re: this post is not off-topic

>>>>> "David" == David Wright <ichbin@shadlen.org> writes:

 >> s/not\s+//;

 David> I appreciate the good-natured jibe. I didn't think the analogy
 David> to the Debian release process was so far-fetched, but it
 David> appears that it is.

I'll admit to being one (of many, probably) who read the first
sentence of your original post and decided that "this post *is*
off-topic", having mysteriously landed here after being misdirected
from an epidemiology list.

 David> I never understood people who claim that to relase Woody for
 David> mainstream architectures (essentially i386 and PPC) before
 David> releasing it for non-mainstream architectures would make the
 David> non-mainstream architectures "second class citizens."

has it really been demonstrated that HPPA (the designated whipping
boy, judging from other posts I've read) significantly holds up
releases?  I personally wouldn't know, not being at all involved in
the process.  

 David> I was hoping someone who takes this position would either
 David> explain why my ananlogy fails or explain why we really should
 David> spend on all 11 diseases equally, even though this does not
 David> help the most people that we can.

it fails because it appears to be based on a false premise: that port
specific bugs are significantly holding up the release process.

then again, whenever someone starts moaning about the outdatedness of
debian, someone usually counters with "Don't you know that Debian has
to support X platforms?  That's not easy!"  it seems common-sensical
that supporting more platforms is going to be harder than supporting
fewer platforms.  if it could be shown that the increasing number of
ports has made Debian *overall* less useful to people, then your
analogy would make more sense.



To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: