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

Re: What's wrong with debian?

Brian Nelson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:34:30PM -0500, Chris Metzler wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:37:44 -0500
Carl Fink wrote:

2.  We have to get it to build on architectures that are only used by
   the people who created them as a proof-of-concept, or we're
   leaving people behind.

Your sarcasm aside, I've never understood this argument.  There are a
*zillion* distros out there that only support x86, or x86 + some very
small number of other platforms.  Debian is one of only a few with a
broad range of supported platforms; that's one of the things that makes
it different.  Why should that be given up?  Why in the world do we
need *yet another* x86-only distro?

No one said x86-only...  Besides, we can develop for various platforms
without actually releasing them as part of stable.

Also, can you give me one concrete example of how this has held up
the release of Sarge?


This points to a thread that simple debates both sides of the issue without any conclusive
evidence stating it actually held up Sarge.


That said, however, there is not much evidence to support the idea that
dropping architectures from the list of release candidates is going to get
us to the release any faster.  Not only is there the possibility that the
responsiveness of individual buildd maintainers should outweigh popularity as
a factor in deciding which architectures to support, there's also the issue
that the biggest blocker for sarge currently, the lack of testing-security
buildd support, affects all but *two* architectures.  Somehow, I don't think
the idea of releasing with only i386 and sparc would be very popular, even
if I was inclined to do so.

[End Quote]

Okay so Joey has a point about the his workload but for Gods sake... have you seen all the
stuff he maintains? Removing architectures isn't the answer. If anything we need to bring on
more developers so that the workload can be distributed better. We need more programs
designed to train and educate willing individuals to become qualified to help. There are so
many people lined up to help yet developers are so busy that we rarely see this being nurtured.

I think that if there is at least one person using that architecture then we owe it to them
to provide packages. If Debian was some huge corporate entity then it could leave the little
man behind. Aren't we all here because we believe in the cause? Have we become blinded by
our own arrogance? I think it's selfish to screw that one person even if it's for the sake
many. So Sarge is taking awhile, what's the rush? It will get here when it's ready and if
that isn't good enough then there are derivatives such as Ubuntu that people can turn to. It
doesn't lessen the work being done here. Distros like Ubuntu will still rely on the work
being done here (and vise versa).

Nobody is saying it's easy. If we need more volunteers than lets focus on that aspect.

I'm replying to this thread in general. Developing for other architectures without releasing
them as part of Stable seems to be fair compromise and possible solution. I still think
increasing the number of developers/maintainers would relieve some of the pressure.

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
	- Albert Einstein

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: