Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
First of all, thanks for your answers. IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a plan, such as: * we *do* have, after all, tasks to install desktops and (some, specialized?) servers, without having to resort to creating another 30G of repositories. Well, you have a valid point here. And I must admit that I forgot about that simple fact (tasks) for a moment. Anyway, I still see an opportunity for improvement :-) Yes, the tasks come right after installing base system and reboot. But maybe (I say: maybe) they should be moved, or at least described earlier in the process. A whole lot of defaults could be preset based on such initial choice, even components of the base system! Come on, is it really needed to have _exactly_ the same base system and initial set of programs on the server as well as on desktop system? I don't know, I'm just asking. On the other hand, I wasn't thinking about creating repositories, just profiles above them. Under the cover there still could be only stable / testing / whatever, like it is right now. In such case profiles could be seen as another layer of abstraction. Anyway, I'm not going to fight for it because: * you've reminded me about tasks, and indeed I'm fine with that * I am no Ian Murdock's advocate by any means, that was his original idea, possibly incompatible with The Debian Way. If he wants something, let he defend his ideas himself ;-) Thanks again for the answers. Friendly, Wiktor Wandachowicz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
==--==--==--== Hello all Debian folks! First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers and maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief for all of you, I guess) Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes and helping a bit on debian-boot with debian-installer I can safely say that I am also concerned with the future of Debian. Lately I have spotted an interesting entry in Ian Murdock's Weblog (http://ianmurdock.com/?p=239), where he points out that in order to get a better user recognition and vendor support some _naming_ changes may be required. After reading the post I can say that indeed there are some ideas worth to be at least considered. What I am referring to is that not only stable / testing / sid repositories are enough. Maybe just after a little bit of tweaking Debian could get some more profiles called server / desktop also? What this means for developers, is to link (or understand) such profiles as server == stable, and desktop == testing. On the other hand, maybe some more profiles would be required, such as: stable-server, stable-desktop, testing-server and testing-desktop? Almost all Linux users would clearly recognize from this naming scheme what is what and what for. I send this post to debian-devel just in order to notify you about these ideas. Think about it, could you? There are some more good ideas in the article. Just see it for yourself. Friendly, Wiktor Wandachowicz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
* Wiktor Wandachowicz :: Hello all Debian folks! First of all I would like to congratulate all Debian developers and maintainers for releasing sarge. Good job! (and a big relief for all of you, I guess) Having a Debian installed on 10 Sun Blade boxes and helping a bit on debian-boot with debian-installer I can safely say that I am also concerned with the future of Debian. Lately I have spotted an interesting entry in Ian Murdock's Weblog (http://ianmurdock.com/?p=239), where he points out that in order to get a better user recognition and vendor support some _naming_ changes may be required. After reading the post I can say that indeed there are some ideas worth to be at least considered. What I am referring to is that not only stable / testing / sid repositories are enough. Maybe just after a little bit of tweaking Debian could get some more profiles called server / desktop also? What this means for developers, is to link (or understand) such profiles as server == stable, and desktop == testing. On the other hand, maybe some more profiles would be required, such as: stable-server, stable-desktop, testing-server and testing-desktop? IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a plan, such as: * testing and unstable are not installable by non-tech-folk, all the time, really. There can be times where they are, but there are some times they are not. They break. * we should not really multiply (space, time, bandwidth) needed for our mirrors; right now, some archs are endangered because of such hefty requirements. * we *do* have, after all, tasks to install desktops and (some, specialized?) servers, without having to resort to creating another 30G of repositories. * finally, the infrastructure necessary to do what you ask for is really a job better done by specialized derived distros (such as LinEx, Ubuntu, even Ian's own Progeny) -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
** Otavio Salvador :: humberto == Humberto Massa Guimaraes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: humberto IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a humberto plan, such as: humberto * testing and unstable are not installable by humberto non-tech-folk, all the time, really. There can be times humberto where they are, but there are some times they are humberto not. They break. unstable really break sometimes but testing exist to be a always working version. This is why sometimes things have a so long delay to enters testing while it has something broken or with RC issues. Not really. I explain: when a bug goes from unstable to testing (and they do) and renders stuff uninstallable on testing, there is a longer delay where things *will* be broken there, until the corrected version goes there from unstable. humberto * we should not really multiply (space, time, bandwidth) humberto needed for our mirrors; right now, some archs are humberto endangered because of such hefty requirements. we currently have support for partial mirroring using a lot of packaged tools like debmirror, rsync, mirror and debpartial-mirror. humberto * we *do* have, after all, tasks to install desktops humberto and (some, specialized?) servers, without having to humberto resort to creating another 30G of repositories. I didn't understand what you mean here. Please explain. The problem with Wiktor's proposal is not only mirroring, but storing, building, and transferring (HD, CPU, bandwidth) *separately* what he calls desktop-testing, desktop-stable, etc etc. humberto * finally, the infrastructure necessary to do what you humberto ask for is really a job better done by specialized humberto derived distros (such as LinEx, Ubuntu, even Ian's own humberto Progeny) Well yes and no. If we had a place to move the improvements we need on derivative distributions could be better since we have the possibility to merge more code and more effort and start to have more cooperation. Debian have all needed structure done. DAK support it very well and what is really need is only decide what is the rules for packages migrate to that releases from unstable. No, after you decide that packages can migrate there is a lot of things you should provide: more storage for the now-frozen package, CPU to rebuild that specific version with the specific dependencies in a point in time, bandwidth to transfer it back and forth and to the mirrors. All this without giving anything more than desktop-task. I'm not sure if this is good or bad for Debian but is possible to have it working without so much effort. We will have to agree in disagreeing. -- HTH, Respectfully, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
humberto == Humberto Massa Guimaraes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: humberto IMHO, there is a series of (serious) problems in such a humberto plan, such as: humberto * testing and unstable are not installable by humberto non-tech-folk, all the time, really. There can be times humberto where they are, but there are some times they are humberto not. They break. unstable really break sometimes but testing exist to be a always working version. This is why sometimes things have a so long delay to enters testing while it has something broken or with RC issues. humberto * we should not really multiply (space, time, bandwidth) humberto needed for our mirrors; right now, some archs are humberto endangered because of such hefty requirements. we currently have support for partial mirroring using a lot of packaged tools like debmirror, rsync, mirror and debpartial-mirror. humberto * we *do* have, after all, tasks to install desktops humberto and (some, specialized?) servers, without having to humberto resort to creating another 30G of repositories. I didn't understand what you mean here. Please explain. humberto * finally, the infrastructure necessary to do what you humberto ask for is really a job better done by specialized humberto derived distros (such as LinEx, Ubuntu, even Ian's own humberto Progeny) Well yes and no. If we had a place to move the improvements we need on derivative distributions could be better since we have the possibility to merge more code and more effort and start to have more cooperation. Debian have all needed structure done. DAK support it very well and what is really need is only decide what is the rules for packages migrate to that releases from unstable. I'm not sure if this is good or bad for Debian but is possible to have it working without so much effort. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Better brand recognition for new Debian (etch)
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: unstable really break sometimes but testing exist to be a always working version. This is why sometimes things have a so long delay to enters testing while it has something broken or with RC issues. Despite that delay and the tests, testing is sometimes uninstallable. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
