Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-06-23, John Summerfield penned:
Yes, but there's no way to test those backports thoroughly enough toDo you believe that?
match the amount of testing that went into stable in the first place.
The point of stable is not just that each package has been tested to the nth degree, it's also that the system as a whole has been tested -- the complex web of interactions among packages. In order to accept these backports into stable, we either have to perform the same amount of testing *on the whole system* as we did to release stable in the first place, or the system can't be certified to be truly stable.
When we change one line on the flight software where I work, we can't just test the unit that was changed and move on. We have to perform the complete system test all over again to make sure nothing unexpected happens. The same concept applies to servers.
I've worked in environments where we didn't test the system after making "small" changes. It's not pretty.
I switched over from OS/2 to 5.0. I was surprised later to discover
people regarded it as buggy. I don't recall how much I used 6.0, but
where I work we still have a 7.0 box in place: I chose 7.0 over 7.1 so
as to have a 2.2 kernel as standard (required for a sat card).
It seems odd to me to choose a release based on the kernel, but okay. It seems *very* odd that you're telling us that RedHat switched major kernel numbers for a minor release.
The most troublesome system I have is one running Woody, the video regularly gets stuffed up and it's prone to losing its keyboard.
Changing the graphics card made no difference.
Is it possible it's the motherboard? Those are some weird problems.
I'm not looking for help, and I'm especially not asking for help in this thread.
It's probably the mobo. It's Gigabyte, Via chipset. I know there were problems with some (early) Via chipsets, and I know at least some problems are fixed with BIOS updates. I forget what the original video card was but the current one is a Radeon 9200 SE. Of course, XFree doesn't understand it, one of the joys of Woody. I can't get better than 1280x1024 out of it despite my Sun monitor supporting better than 1600x1200.
KDE locks up every time, so when I use it at the keyboad I login using GNOME and start a VNC session running KDE.
Currently I mostly use the box at the other end of a modem and that works fine. Shortly I hope to be using it at the other end of a 1500/ ADSL connexion and that will be better.
Oh, the box locks up whenever I try to use the 120 Gbyte WD drive in it.
Its main use is to backport packages to woody. It does that.
I thnk Red Hat didn't have commercial customers when it started onIt sounds like a lot more work for the developers. RedHat had commercial customers to support their developers. How would you suggest Debian manage this?
this model.
No, but they were always a company looking to make money off of their
product (not that there's anything wrong with that). Debian has no such
plans, and that's one of the reasons why I trust them to do what's right
rather than what's profitable. It's also one of the reasons it's been
suggested as a reference implementation a number of times.
Its only since its IPO that RH has become money-hungry. I am comfortable with the notion of paid-for support in the way of security advisories and bug-fixes: the only matter for debate is cost.
I think these people may have something I'd accept: http://www.lineox.com/
Indeed. While I disagree with much of the Debian project (before you jump in, I'd point ot that many of the Debian Developers disagree with each other too), I do admire their endevour and commitment to the project.Debian developers are hard-working folk, but it's hard to work full-time for free.
Better, I think to seek ways towards that ideal. Some cliches come to mind - the person who makes no mistakes does nothing, a journey of a thousand leagues begins with a single step...As I already said, there are enough developers doing enough work - the
packages are out there. What is missing official adoption by Debian,
and the coordination that would follow its adoption.
No, what's missing is the testing infrastructure. *System* testing, not just the individual package.
I haven't yet seen a Debian beta process, so I don't know what happens, but if (as I've read) the DDs are mostly running testing or unstable, then there has to be something wrong in _their_ estimation with Woody.
The recent move to subversion has had the effect of officially cutting Woody users off from the latest source - there is no offical Woody build of subversion.
Do you think the current situration is perfect? If not, how do _you_ think it may be improved.If there was an official line of "built for Stable" packages
comprising packages people felt were needed, linked to from the
dowload page, be sure a lot of people would try them out.
And now a lot of people who aren't motivated enough to do a google search or ask on d-u are installing packages that haven't been fully tested with the system. The status quo at least ensures that the people who are using backports have at a minimum the ability to research questions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
