Re: Debian: abandon ship?
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 04:41:20AM -0700, Nick Jacobs wrote:
> A few days ago, David Wright posted a message to this list,
> questioning the wisdom of Debian's decision to target 11
> architectures. He pointed out (with supporting references) that this
> decision has contributed to a long delay in releasing Woody; of
> course, other people have said this before.
>
> The main result was that a small number of Debian insiders posted
> abusive comments in response to David's perfectly reasonable message.
> (The thread, in case you missed it, has the subject "This post is not
> off-topic".)
>
> With hindsight, it's clear that trying to support too many
> architectures was a mistake.
It's not really at all clear that this was where the mistake lay. I
think the mistake was in not getting the infrastructure upgrades
underway sooner; I support this claim by pointing out that virtually
everything else in Debian deals with large numbers of architectures very
cleanly and with little delay. The security team mentioned some time ago
that supporting woody was going to be difficult, but unfortunately
nobody did enough about it early on.
I hope you don't find this comment abusive. It's worth remembering that
many developers are feeling under quite a lot of pressure right now,
because a large percentage of the more vocal users sometimes seem to be
engaging in a "trash-the-developers campaign" with regard to the woody
release, and many of us have already put in just about as much work as
we possibly can to make it go smoothly; that's bound to make some
feathers a little ruffled.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: