Le Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:14:22AM +0100, Christian Perrier a écrit : > > Actually, it's equally frustrating for all of us that we *can't* > release a new D-I despite the team plan to release RC2 a few weeks > after RC1. > > We can't do this because the 2.6.18 kernel is not in testing.
Hi all, How about releasing a RC1.5, then, with a 2.6.18 as similar as possible as the one forecasted in testing ? This would help to keep the momentum on the solving of some problems. For instance, I tested RC1 and another build for the "loud fans" problems on iMac G5. I did this as a service to the community: I do not suffer from this problem anymore, and I am not loyal to the powerpc arch (If my iMac breaks, I would consider any arch for replacement). In my last test, the fans were silent in the installer, but not on the newly installed system. There has been a fix since. Or maybe not. I was not pointed to something to test, and I have other projects for my Debian time. The momentum for solving this problem is being lost. What is needed to keep the ports alive is some kind of leadership, simply focused on "getting things done" and coordinating people who can help if asked, but who prefer doing something else otherwise. As I said in a previous mail (sent on -powerpc only), the problem is that in the current way Debian operates its ports, "getting things done" is often unavoidably "getting somebody to do the things". This is bound to create personal conflicts from time to time. There is for the moment nobody who has : - time, - good relationship with all the key Debian infrastructures and packaging teams, - excellent knowledge of the aforementioned infrastructures and packages, - excellent knowledge of powerpc, - excellent social skills, - access to all hardware, - ... But aren't we looking for an imaginary superhero? If yes, then the question is to see if we can adapt the structure to the people instead of waiting for people to fit the structure. Would it be helpful if the ports had a bit more independance in Debian? At least the situation would be more dynamic if developpers who care for a port could do things directly by themselves, and one can not ask to the porters to be at the same time one members of the kernel, installer, release, buildd, ftp, and security teams... I hope that this message helps a bit to make the things progress. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
