Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 09 March 2003 11:47, Andi Payn wrote: On Sunday 09 March 2003 01:53, Michael Scherer wrote: To give a simple exemple, we still can choose SGI and HP in the hardware section. Well, you actually can still use SGI hardware with Mandrake, since the last couple generations of SGI hardware were standard Intel boxes with standard video cards Actually no. The only standard thing on these boxes was the Intel CPU. We have few of them here and even Windows will not install on them without some serious hacking. The video board and mainboard are completely proprietary SGI design. SGI actually provided a modified version of some Redhat 6.x Linux for them long time ago, but without video support. Jan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+bHVGn11XseNj94gRAloxAJ9d0jVQ+sw0vvpeHerjVbfOfG5QVACfdr1U d5CaJgwubYipbc30ciSf/zs= =xGw6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
I think maybe keeping milestone snapshots of cooker would be a good thing. These would be less stable than the betas but more stable than Cooker, thus encouraging more to test out packages that are still in development. It would also provide more flexibility; if, late in the devcycle of a version, it becomes apparent that Cooker is not in any state to base a release of, one of the milestones may be more suitable for release. But, people will still report bugs which are corrected in the current packages. The force of Debian is not in the 3 distro approach. They use a special bug reporting tool, not a web interface. This sucks, IMHO, but, on the other hand, you need to know how to report a bug, and, people don't post kde don t work bug. So, providing snap shot of cooker wouln't be a good idea, since it will only generate more noise. What should be done is to educate people for good bug reporting. It would also be great to improve the search page of bugzilla. I still feel confused each time I use it. To give a simple exemple, we still can choose SGI and HP in the hardware section. -- Mickaël Scherer
Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
On Sun Mar 09 10:53 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote: So, providing snap shot of cooker wouln't be a good idea, since it will only generate more noise. What should be done is to educate people for good bug reporting. However, the milestones would spread bug reporting out more, instead of in fits and spurts. The more debugging that gets done the earlier the better off the distro is. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The food of love is Mandrake root. GPG Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Rush - The Stars Look Down Linux 2.4.21-0.13mdk 05:00:06 up 12:48, 9 users, load average: 0.35, 0.27, 0.27
Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
On Sunday 09 March 2003 01:53, Michael Scherer wrote: To give a simple exemple, we still can choose SGI and HP in the hardware section. Well, you actually can still use SGI hardware with Mandrake, since the last couple generations of SGI hardware were standard Intel boxes with standard video cards More seriously: The force of Debian is not in the 3 distro approach. They use a special bug reporting tool, not a web interface. This sucks, IMHO, but, on the other hand, you need to know how to report a bug, and, people don't post kde don t work bug. I'm not sure whether or not the 3-distro approach is important to the strengths of Debian, but I suspect that it's part of their weaknesses--in particular, the fact that their stable releases are usually far behind most other distros (not just Mandrake, but everyone). The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it's not appropriate for Mandrake, at least not the way they do it.
Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
On Sunday 09 March 2003 06:47 pm, Andi Payn wrote: I'm not sure whether or not the 3-distro approach is important to the strengths of Debian, but I suspect that it's part of their weaknesses--in particular, the fact that their stable releases are usually far behind most other distros (not just Mandrake, but everyone). The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it's not appropriate for Mandrake, at least not the way they do it. Just do it their way, but wrap and ship `testing'? (-: Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
On Friday 07 March 2003 11:08 am, George Mitchell wrote: Andi, there is a solution to this problem. That is to maintain a stable version of cooker. Do the actual work of upgrading and fixing various components offline, and merge them into the stable cooker tree only when they have been thoroughly tested. Debian call this testing. Why not just make the Drak tools work with APT and be done with it? (-: Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
On Sun Mar 09 11:31 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: On Friday 07 March 2003 11:08 am, George Mitchell wrote: Andi, there is a solution to this problem. That is to maintain a stable version of cooker. Do the actual work of upgrading and fixing various components offline, and merge them into the stable cooker tree only when they have been thoroughly tested. Debian call this testing. Why not just make the Drak tools work with APT and be done with it? (-: I think maybe keeping milestone snapshots of cooker would be a good thing. These would be less stable than the betas but more stable than Cooker, thus encouraging more to test out packages that are still in development. It would also provide more flexibility; if, late in the devcycle of a version, it becomes apparent that Cooker is not in any state to base a release of, one of the milestones may be more suitable for release. These milestones would probably better be based on certain criteria being met, rather than a strict calendar approach. This would, of course, require that some type of roadmap be laid out for the development of each version. -- Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The food of love is Mandrake root. GPG Fingerprint: 354C 7A02 77C5 9EE7 8538 4E8D DCD9 B4B0 DC35 67CD Currently playing: Apocalyptica - Inquisition Symphony Linux 2.4.21-0.13mdk 22:30:00 up 6:18, 8 users, load average: 0.09, 0.12, 0.09
Re: [Cooker] Reinventing the Debian (was: 9.1...Delayed)
On Saturday 08 March 2003 22:39, Levi Ramsey wrote: On Sun Mar 09 11:31 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: On Friday 07 March 2003 11:08 am, George Mitchell wrote: Andi, there is a solution to this problem. That is to maintain a stable version of cooker. Do the actual work of upgrading and fixing various components offline, and merge them into the stable cooker tree only when they have been thoroughly tested. Debian call this testing. Why not just make the Drak tools work with APT and be done with it? (-: I think maybe keeping milestone snapshots of cooker would be a good thing. These would be less stable than the betas but more stable than Cooker, thus encouraging more to test out packages that are still in development. It would also provide more flexibility; if, late in the devcycle of a version, it becomes apparent that Cooker is not in any state to base a release of, one of the milestones may be more suitable for release. These milestones would probably better be based on certain criteria being met, rather than a strict calendar approach. This would, of course, require that some type of roadmap be laid out for the development of each version. I agree (sort of). There are times when it is known that a change in one package will require a number of packages to be rebuilt (e.g. gcc, glibc, kernel). Jumping into the middle of one of these rounds is, at times, pointless and frustrating. A message to this list saying we're updating xxx pacakges, you might want to hold on for a day or two would be welcome. Jim Tarvid
