Le vendredi 25 avril 2003 à 15:27:57, David Krider a écrit:
> I would love whatever pointers the lists may have to offer on this, but
> it raises a much larger question about versions and currency in general.
> I see that pilot-link is the same version in Sid as it is in Woody, and
> that version i
Stephen Ryan wrote:
> there is no substitute for testing in the *exact* environment that you
> plan to release in. Period.
My point exactly. We should test packages in the environment we plan to
release: sarge. We should not let new uploads hold other packages
hostage. Because then we are only te
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Björn Stenberg wrote:
> > > Perhaps one reason is that fixing enough bugs to get stuff into testing is
> > > currently a whack-a-mole job?
> >
> > I don't think your proposals will really fix that, since in my experience
> > that new version of A probably requires
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 05:03, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I don't think your proposals will really fix that, since in my experience
> > that new version of A probably requires all sorts of new crap from B
> > anyway...
>
> Does it, really? Or does it simply have binary depende
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Perhaps one reason is that fixing enough bugs to get stuff into testing is
> > currently a whack-a-mole job?
>
> I don't think your proposals will really fix that, since in my experience
> that new version of A probably requires all sorts of new crap from B
> anyway...
Do
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Björn Stenberg wrote:
> After all, it's sarge that's the release candidate right? Not sid. So why is
> sid allowed to dictate dependencies that sarge must conform to?
I think it's because sid is meant to be sarge+2 weeks, if all goes according
to plan...
> Kill
Roland Mas wrote:
> To me, you seem to express the view that improving Debian means
> throwing away our release process, including the way testing works.
Then I have expressed myself unclearly. My apologies. I think testing is a
great idea and a most necessary institution. In fact, I wish we had m
Roland Mas wrote:
*Supposing* I were agreeing with you on the existence of a problem,
I would probably be of the opinion classified as case 3 above. The
reason I could identify for the problem would be that people prefer
bitching and complaining about testing being late and stable being
old, rat
Björn Stenberg (2003-04-27 21:17:04 +0200) :
[...]
> Actually, Debian has chosen Portability over Quality. Quality means
> a lot more than just fixing bugs, you know. A program that does not
> work with current data or devices has low quality even if it doesn't
> crash. The mere age of most packa
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > it's labour-intensive, it's pretty damn effective.
> ^
>
> And there's why it doesn't work for Debian. We don't have money to throw at
> our developers.
I never claimed we should. I merely explained one of the many reasons Debian
is fundamentally s
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 10:48:25PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> An example: Before gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.2 went in the other day, no less than 607
> packages were stuck in unstable waiting for them. How many of those packages
> actually required gcc 3 to compile and run? I'd guess not many.
Without
On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Björn Stenberg wrote:
> One difference, good or bad, between Debian and commercial distributions is
> the lack of branches above stable. When commercial distro X makes a release,
> they pick the last-known-good versions of all the packages they want, compile
> it
Björn Stenberg wrote:
An example: Before gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.2 went in the other day, no less than 607
packages were stuck in unstable waiting for them. How many of those packages
actually required gcc 3 to compile and run? I'd guess not many.
Well, hey, if gcc 3.3 has made it into stable, this is bi
David Nusinow wrote:
> You say you can't deal with unstable because the software is broken.
> Well, that's because the software you want isn't ready to be released.
That's not the whole truth. A _lot_ of software is ready and working, but is
held back from entering sarge due to dependency problems
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:27:57PM -0500, David Krider wrote:
> I know, I know. I've heard lots of people talk about how great it is,
> but, as far as I know, the bitmapped fonts under KDE in Sid are still
> messed up, and that's a show stopper for me.
Hopefully this will be resolved eventually or
Debian sid is roughly equal to most other distributions official
releases. One of the main reasons that Debian stable and testing are
always behind other distributions is due to the fact Debian requires
much more out of the packages, by requiring them to work on all
architectures and without major
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:27:57PM -0500, David Krider wrote:
> Please don't tell me, "We'll blah, blah release blah when blah it's
> blah, blah, blah ready."
What do you expect people to say? This is the development model. If you
think things are going too slow, help out and start squashing bugs.
So I'm trying out Debian on the desktop. I'm a long-time Red Hat user
who's given up on them because of their product strategy. I bought SuSE
8.2, and it's been great. I'm saying these things not to start a
flamewar, but just to tell where I'm coming from. I'm just saying that I
expect a lot of pol
18 matches
Mail list logo
