On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:31:34 -0500, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My interpretation of the announcement, and this also comes from talking with >some of the people involved, is that this affords ports with the flexibility to >do as they please without slowing down the rest of the project.
That is an interpretation that I cannot follow regarding the wording of the Vancouver Paper. >For *years*, >I've heard porters complain about ftpmaster and such. Well, now every port has >the full ability to take matters in to their own hands. They still upload to >unstable, just like always. Autobuilders for those arches still run, just like >always. These arches still have a host or number of hosts with sufficient drive >space to manage their port, just like always (although the url will be changed >to something as of yet undetermined). Well, DSA refuses to do system administration for machines running anything other than Debian stable. So, when there is no Debian stable for $ARCH any more, who will take care of the $ARCH developer boxes? >The differences? Port packages don't go in to Debian mainline testing. However, >this does not preclude them from setting up a separate testing if they like. Really? The Vancouver Paper says something very different. >The people involved with the Vancouver document know what they're doing, and >they've said (more than once when I've heard) that the unstable snapshot method >is better than setting up a separate testing, and I believe them. Well, I know some attendants of the Vancouver Meeting personally, and I even call one of them a friend. However, the Vancouver Meeting was also attended by some people that have worked hard to earn my utmost distrust, so I am kind of undecided what to think. Currently, I still think that the Vancouver Paper is mainly to ease the work load on ftpmaster, while not forcing them to accept any help, and to allow them to continue holding the project hostage while claiming that they do not owe anything. >This does not preclude porters from making a stable release. Well, the Vancouver Paper says different. > In fact, all the >talk I've heard assumes that they will (via the snapshot method). Snapshots of unstable will be _very_ different from testing/stable, and so any snapshot-based release will not be what Debian stable is, resulting in a bunch of uncoordinated independent distributions. This is not what we owe to our users. We claim to make "The Universal Operating System", and we are currently working hard on making that claim an outright lie. > Their ability >to work is no longer hampered by overloaded RM's/ftpmasters/whatever. I think >that when a port makes a stable release it'll be thought of as an actual Debian >release, especially when it sync's up with the mainline stable release. How can a distribution that is forced to be based on an unstable snapshot be synced with mainline stable? > - David Nusinow A true politician. Congratulations. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
