On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 05:55:38PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I certainly didn't want to diminish the work you're doing, but I still think
> we have to find better ways to release. potato is too old right now and most
> people I do talk to, tell me they don't care about all these packages, but
> they want newer versions of the packages they use. 

Two responses: first, if they don't want new packages, just newer versions
of the stuff they "use", that'd presumably exclude things like, oh,
say, KDE... So you've got to be a little careful there. Second, most of
the problems are with the newer versions of old packages:

        apache: 126707, 126743
        apt: 127648, 127942
        base-passwd: 123345
        exim: 126124
        gnuplot: 126014
        gpm: 113454
        gs-common: 126475
        icewm: 123448
        imagemagick: 123133
        iproute: 118424, 119601, 123224
        ld.so: 97071, 102055
        libc6: 126441
        mc: 123161
        mozilla: 128046
        pcmcia-cs: 119837
        postgresql: 118362, 121088
        qmail: 72310
        reportbug: 127507
        samba: 127444
        slapd: 112499, 126898
        ssh: 127575
        sysutils: 120025
        sysvinit: 127635
        tetex-bin: 69600
        tripwire: 90912, 92510, 94603

...are a sample of pakcages that seem reasonably "standard" to me that
are in the RC bug list. You'll note some of those bug numbers are around
a year old. 
        
> Yes, I know that if we
> take all those people we probably have 99% of the packages belonging into
> someone's core, but the age is a factor.

No, I don't dispute that looking at core packages is worthwhile: it is;
all I'm saying is that once we actually get to the point where those core
packages are releasable, the rest of the work (getting rid of unreleasable
extra packages) isn't much of a problem. And converesely: if we don't
get all the base/standard bugs fixed, there's nothing anyone can do
to make us release any quciker, unless we're willing to just release a
bunch of junk with known security problems that doesn't upgrade cleanly
and whatever else.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

The daffodils are coming. Are you?
      linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia
                                --- http://linux.conf.au/


Reply via email to