On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:33:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > I've gone ahead and started the beta 2 release process. CD images are in > place and I will send out the release announcement once the web site has > updated. (Some install media won't appear in sarge until tomorrow's > dinstall.) > > I have to say that this release took longer to get done than I'd hoped. > We started out strong, the compromise was unavoidable and was handled as > well as can be expected, the string freeze went well, the holiday > slowdown was worse than I expected, and then it felt to me as if things > trailed off at the end instead of us making a big push to finish the > release. I'm going to think about this and try to figure out things that > went wrong and how to avoid them, and I'd appreciate any insights anyone > might have.
Don't ever make release schedules between christmas and new year :) Also, the intrusion was a slowing factor which should not happen again hopefully, and the NEW processing freeze made it even worse. > Anyway with luck we now have a firm release, available in the sarge > distribution, for three architectures, which is an important step along > the way to sarge releasing with d-i. > > In a sense we're not done with beta2 yet, since we have between 1 and > 2.5 architectures that are still in positions to possibly be added to > the beta in a week or two. At the same time, I am eager to open unstable > back up to continued development especially with so many improvements > already waiting to go in. The conflict here is that if a package is > destablised in unstable, and then the beta2 "backport" needs to get a > minor fix to that package into sarge to make it work on a pending > architecture, I won't be able to get that fix into sarge; it will be > blocked by the changes in unstable. I am dubious about the non-newpmac powerpc architectures. The subarch handling that did work in Oldenbourg has been disabled, and there is not yet support for different initrd's and kernels for a same arch. Would enabling this inside the beta2 branch not create risk of breaking something else ? Also, i am a bit unhappy about this, we all knew it was needed, so why was the existing subarch functionality disabled, and why did nobody care about this ? And this does not only affect powerpc, all other arch with subarch handling are affected. > So starting after tomorrow's dinstall (just in case something goes > wrong), unstable is reopened for uploads of: > > I. NEW udebs (partman, etc), that are not present in sarge. > II. Any changes necessary for mips, alpha, and powerpc subarches, > targeted at beta 2. A new linux-kernel-di upload is needed tomorrow, after my -5 kernels enter the archive, i missed the deadline yesterday. They add support for old world pmac, as tested by Jeremie Koenig, and the pegasos RTC fix. Also, is it ok, if in my next upload, i drop the udeb packages ? Also, power3/power4 based boxes would need a new kernel config, but will be slowed by NEW queue processing if i upload it. Well, this will only be for 32bit kernel for those, not (yet) for 64bit kernels. Also, a powerpc kernel upgrade may be needed for newer apple hardware, maybe based on the -benh tree. Or maybe even an option for 2.6 kernels for the G5 based pmacs ? Finally, cdrom initrd is too big for chrp/chrp-rs6k builtin initrd. netboot works fine tough. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
