On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:14:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > This proposal is, first and foremost, about setting concrete criteria that > we can hold the ports to for etch, to get away from wishy-washy, "one more > week for kernel updates on $arch", "$arch2 isn't doing so well, maybe we > should drop it from testing" problems that the release team is currently > suffering from. The idea of setting criteria should not be controversial, > though I can understand that specific criteria we've suggested may be.
True. The specific criteria as have been suggested are most certainly controversial; but setting criteria for ports to keep up with should not necessarily be. It may be a bad idea to suddenly set a whole bunch of criteria at once; big and controversial changes are not how Free Software in the 'bazaar' model generally works. For that reason, why not reduce the whole proposal to... * The separate mirror stuff is implemented (I don't think anyone has any problems with that, except for its name which should be 'nybbles' IMO) * All ports need to * build packages within (to be defined) days, on average, of them getting in the 'Needs-Build' state (this may require applying the patch by Matthias Ulrichs to wanna-build) * have some basic UNIX functionality, such as resolving DNS names, firewall capacity, and some (to be defined) subset of POSIX. ...and address any problems after that as they come up? -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature