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

Incorrect statements in the release announcement, please fix! (was Re: Release announcement for Etch -- help needed by translators)

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 07:10:27PM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> The announcement is available at
> http://people.debian.org/~tolimar/release.txt (and soon .wml).
> It would be great if you could translate it in time so the anouncement
> would be in all kind of languages in place.

There's a few thing WRONG with this announcement, some information was taken
verbatim from sarge's and is *not* true. Please take a look at the following paragraph:

"Upgrades to Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 from the previous release, Debian
GNU/Linux 3.1 codenamed "sarge", are automatically handled by the
aptitude package management tool for most configurations, and to a
certain degree also by the apt-get package management tool.  As always,
Debian GNU/Linux systems can be upgraded quite painlessly, in place,
without any forced downtime, but it is strongly recommended to read the
release notes for possible issues.  For detailed instructions about
installing and upgrading Debian GNU/Linux, please see the release notes
<http://www.debian.org/releases/etch/releasenotes>.  Please note that
the release notes will be further improved and translated to additional
languages in the coming weeks. "

Several things:

- upgrades are not automatically handled by aptitude in this release, there
  are some steps users have to take before going 'dist-upgrade'. They should
  be warned to go to read the Release Notes *before* doing this upgrade

- apt-get is *not* recommended

- there *is* downtime, a new kernel needs to be installed and that requires
  a reboot

- we should not say "painlessly" here. The upgrade *is* painful for some
  architectures and users have to be extra careful

Maybe I'm biased because of Release Notes editing, but I think that should be
ammended. I'm not certain if this went to -release first for review by
Release Managers, but it certainly should have gone to (before asking for



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: