Re: amdgpu broken on bookworm?
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 09:06:47AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 28 Aug 2021 at 22:19:05 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> > David Wright wrote:
> > > On Sat 28 Aug 2021 at 08:36:32 (-0400), songbird wrote:
> > ...
> > >> just to note that using "bookworm" in your subject line can
> > >> give the implication that "bookworm" is actually released which
> > >> it hasn't. it is much better to use the keyword "testing" in
> > >> the subject line instead.
> > >
> > > I don't know where you got that from.
> >
> > because testing has always been just testing to me, when
> > the images are made and sent out as official releases with
> > their signed packages and keys and all the rest that is when
> > i consider them by their code names. that is when the
> > release team actually releases it. just because i am following
> > along while they are putting it together in testing or sid
> > doesn't mean it is done.
>
> That seems a reasonable viewpoint if you're a perpetual testing user,
> living entirely in the present.
>
> > > A Release gets a *number*.
> > > (The number that might be given to trixie will depend on how
> > > superstitious the Debian release team is.) It's legitimate to talk
> > > about, say, features that might be retained in bookworm, but dropped
> > > by trixie. That's what the codenames are for.
> >
> > sure, but those are all conversations about possibilities
> > they're not done until they're released.
>
> They have to be planned for in the years before release. It's
> difficult to discuss future distributions without giving them
> static codenames that don't shift under your feet. That's
> standard practice in almost any project management.
>
> > of course this is
> > my opinion but i think the Release team also feels something
> > about the meaning of the word "Official" and the whole process
> > including the key signing and verification steps...
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying here; that bookworm and trixie
> aren't "official" names?
>
It's also worth reviewing ancient history which is what made Debian
switch to codenames at all (and a bunch of projects then followed our
example eg Ubuntu and Red Hat (though Red Hat's names are barely visible).
Someone at Infomagic wanted to steal a march on everyone else and publish
Debian 1.0 on their quarterly release. I can't remember quite what they
did package - but it wasn't release quality yet and didn't actually boot.
The end result was that Debian jumped straight to 1.1 and a new thing - a
codename (Buzz) because the then DPL (Bruce Perens) worked for Pixar.
bookworm is less than a month old but will follow the release until it's
oldoldstable - "testing" is a movable feast.
All the very best, as ever,
Andy Cater
> Cheers,
> David.
>
Reply to: