On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:27:25PM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: > > To me this decision sounds like a very good idea. Catering to some very > > specialised architectures can be good, but should not be a great burden on > > the total project. Trying to include everything in one big distribution is > > inherently not working (as has been shown with sarge). It is very well > > possible to maintain high quality ports of Debian, and infrastructure is > > provided for that, without making the release dependant on it.
> But the number of archs is not that huge problem that some people want to > make us believe. > I think the main problem is the general size of the distribution in number > of packages. You can't get 10.000 packages into a stable shape for a > release, quite simple. Can't you? Removing unimportant buggy packages from testing is *easy* -- much easier than trying to craft guidelines for declaring a set of "core" packages. Getting all of the packages that are considered too important to release without is *hard*. Hand-holding an RC bugfix to make sure it gets built on all 11 architectures is much, much harder. I know which of these tasks has been eating more of my time for sarge. Do you? I'm all about portability, but I also believe it's important in terms of our release cycle length for the release team to be in a position to set release standards for architectures, much stricter than the ones we have in place now. This proposal represents our first stab at this. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
