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

Re: What happened to debian - does "stable" keep having any meaning?

On 2011-03-23 09:14:04 Geronimo wrote:
>For me its a debian QA issue.
>grub may have bugs, as well as linux kernel - and of cause, each bug may
>break a system or lead to fresh installation, which does not work.
>That's no problem - if it happens at sid or testing.
>... but for me, its completely unacceptable having this happen to debian
>No other linux distribution has that QA-level of debian, so it may happen on
>every other linux too.
>Debian stable is a synonym for really good (and unreached by others) QA -
>and this has been broken now.

Nothing really changed in this area around Squeeze release.  RC bugs are 
tracked and resolved with new uploads, downgraded, ignored because they don't 
affect testing-that-will-soon-be-stable, or specifically tagged to be handled 
with an update to stable.

If no one has issues with testing / sid, or they have issues and don't file 
bugs, then it won't be on the release team's radar.  With things that are 
remarkably hardware specific (like GRUB2) it's not really possible for a DD to 
test your configuration unless they just happen to have it as well.  With 
certain other things (like FTBFS issues) there are DDs that, as time permits, 
run through the entire archive and file bugs for such QA issues.

There's usually plenty of time between freeze and release.  If you want to 
make sure the release works for your configuration, test the upgrade / install 
during freeze and file bugs.  Even if something won't be fixed (i.e. using 
kernel device names in /etc/fstab is fragile), it can be turned into 
information / documentation contained in the release notes.

Also, Debian doesn't control upstream.  When KDE decides to abandon KDE 3 or 
the GRUB developers decide to abandon GRUB1, Debian *has* to follow.[1]  For 
the vast majority of programs in Debian, there are not enough DDs interested 
in that software to maintain it without support from upstream.

[1]  FWIW, GRUB2 and KDE SC 4 are both much more capable and featureful than 
their predecessors.[2]  They do lack the "finishing" that KDE 3 and GRUB1 got 
through years of being deployed in production.  Some of that "finishing" is 
missed; much of it really was "cruft" that just made it harder to improve the 

[2] Let this not be interpreted as approval of the development process for 
either of these projects.  As a maintenance programmer, there's plenty of code 
I've wanted to throw out and just re-implement from the ground up.  But, the 
more I do it, the more I get the sense that that is rarely, if ever, the 
correct way forward.  I would like liked to see the changes made in both these 
projects made more incrementally.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.           	 ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net            	((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy 	 `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/        	     \_/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: