-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg Folkert wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 00:45 +0200, Sven Arvidsson wrote: >> There have been a lot of talk and suggestions, for example, Joey Hess >> described Constantly Usable Testing, it sounds a bit like your >> suggestion. >> http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/debian/cut.html >> >> Also, there seems to be some interest of making official backports to >> support new hardware and new releases for typical desktop users. I would >> be surprised if this didn't happen for the Lenny release, or even >> sooner. > > CUT was exactly what testing was supposed to be, in the beginning. > Period. It hasn't become that. It has gotten to the point that sometimes > testing is borkdened for long periods of time... in small areas mind > you, but still broken. > > I think it would be good to have the Sidux group latch onto this. They > could really improve the whole process. It would make Testing usable at > any one moment. And make something you could always point to and say: > > try that > > And then watch problems melt. It would be a good thing, as it would make > Debian able to release a new version at nearly any time. In other words, > 1 month between releases, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 2 years... > whatever they want.
I don't think the Sidux developers plan on tackling testing, but I think Kanotix is. According to the latest scuttlebutt, Testing is going to be the basis for Kanotix, not Ubuntu. Kano changes his mind frequently on the issue, so we'll just have to wait until he releases something. I agree that something needs to be done so that Sid doesn't have to freeze when Testing freezes. Right now there are loads of packages waiting in experimental for Etch to release so they can enter Sid. It's kind of hard claiming to be running a bleeding edge distro when some of your apps are 2 releases behind upstream. I can understand the reasoning behind the current situation, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Also, the snippet about Debian on this weeks distrowatch weekly http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070402 mentions that we run a very old glibc to keep compatibilty with so many architectures. I understand that, but doesn't that make us less appealing to the x86 crowd, and offer potential problems with newer software based on newer libraries? Joe - -- Registerd Linux user #443289 at http://counter.li.org/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGEflWiXBCVWpc5J4RAiCNAKCl5/zlmdEn1x0k1d8pJI+q71Xl1QCgrh7u EajHJygXJttza0+L2WCU+8I= =dVpd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
