On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 04:21:57PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think that in order to make sense of what's being said here we need
> to step back a bit, and think about abstractions rather than
> implementation. Lots of people (myself included) have been posting
> rather detailed proposals.
>
> Q. What are we trying to achieve ?
>
> A. There are two possibilities that I can see
> - Timely and good-quality releases, or
> - Releases which meet some predefined set of goals.
>
> I think we can only do one of these. With hamm we're doing the
> latter; in the future I think we should do the former.
Fine, as long as we have some "long term goals" that must be achieved,
better sooner than later (FHS compliance, for example).
[...]
> For a whole distribution, I think we have:
> * all packages' dependencies can be satisfied
> * other mechanical consistency checks (file overlaps,
> priority/dependency checks, etc.) are OK
> * distribution or something very like it has been tested
> and no sufficiently serious problems have been found
Elaborating on that last point I would add: fresh installations as well
as upgrading from previous release/releases has been tested.
--
Enrique Zanardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
