Hi Luca, Am Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:47:11PM +0100 schrieb Luca Boccassi: > > As far as I know other major distributions do not undertake the time_t > > 64bit transition (whether this marks leadership or not is questionable > > but it will make us the leading distribution on those architectures in > > future). > > Of course they are, most of the important work lately has been done by > SUSE for example, to replace legacy components that will hopelessly > break in 2038. Of course they have an advantage in not having to carry > around dead architectures, so it's easier.
Thank you for the information. > > I think we are doing a good job regarding CI with adding autopkgtests > > (but we could do even better for sure). I'm not informed about the > > status of CI in other distributions and whether there exists something > > like Salsa CI. I'm positively convinced that Debian has reached a level > > of complexity which makes CI tests mandatory for every important package > > and I would love if we could do the lead here. > > OpenQA is used by other distros, both Fedora and SUSE use it. Fedora's > source control system has a CI integrated with it that is similar to > the one we have. Packit is even starting to make its way in upstream > projects's CIs, we use it in systemd for example, so that upstream PRs > also build and test Fedora packages in Fedora images. We do the same > with Debian and autopkgtest btw. Thanks again. As I admitted in my platform I'm not well informed about other distributions but I'm willing to become better informed to be able to learn from others. > > > That's the price we currently pay for being not a commercial entity, > > > > I fully subscribe to this statement. > > I don't think commercial entities have anything to do with this. > Fedora is not a commercial entity (please, no FUD about RH) and yet it > can take decisions and implement them just fine. It's entirely a > question of self-organization and what rules we decide for the > project. Please don't get me wrong: I do not consider Fedora a commercial entity. I simply subscribe the statement that we are facing some problems in Debian since we are not a commercial entity. > > I need to admit that I (currently) don't know much about Fedora (but I > > hope I could fix this in the near future). At Chemnitzer Linuxtage I > > took the chance to talk to OpenSUSE and Nix about organisatorical > > solutions. There was no booth by Fedora I could show up. > > In short, Fedora project members elect a technical committee, FESCO. > Project members can submit proposals to this committee for > project-wide changes, which votes on whether to approve them or reject > them. If they are approved, the committee and the proposer are > empowered to enact the changes distro-wide - whether individual > package maintainers like them or not. An approved proposal can fail > and be rolled back for technical reasons (e.g.: unexpected issues crop > up at implementation time), but not because random package maintainers > practice obstructionism because they don't like the decision. If you compare this to Debian what exactly is your proposal to change for the better? Kind regards Andreas. -- https://fam-tille.de
