The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Core release test bed (was: Re: Unidentified subject!)

galenh@micron.net (Galen Hazelwood)  wrote on 21.02.97 in <330E94F7.75EAFF0F@micron.net>:

> > I would just wish that some people would really as I suggested before take
> > a close look at what FreeBSD is doing. Defining an essential core system
> > (ca. 60-100MB installed binary size) that contains everything an Unix
> > system needs to run _properly_ is an essential step.
> >
>
> I'm not so sure I agree with this...but I'll consider it.

We're already doing this. That's about what we call "standard" or better.

> > The sources for this system should be in ONE source tree so that it can be
> > build with one command (known as "make world" in all BSD and most
> > professional Unix systems). This will give us one essential system
> > where everything fits together and where you have no problems because one
> > developer compiled a package in this or that special evironment. It would
> > also make sure that all packages are really compileable.
> >
>
> I have a serious problem with this.  Back when I was first trying to
> install a unix clone on a PC, I had to choose between 386bsd and
> Linux 0.99.  I found the two systems more or less equal in most
> important areas, because I had no particular sysv/bsd loyalties at
> that time.  Why I chose linux over BSD?  Because I saw the universal,
> single-tree BSD source as centralized, ugly, and fascist.  The linux
> idea of modular and independent source packages struck me as superior,
> both in a practical and aesthetic sense.
>
> I can see how the universal source tree would look very appealing.  But
> please, please try to understand my point of view.  I'm sure I'm not
> the only one who holds it.  Then again, perhaps I am.

I don't think this is quite as problematic as it first looks, as long as  
we don't junk what we already have.

That is, keep the stuff separated in packages. Make some policy decisions  
that essentially say, standard level stuff must not ever depend on stuff  
with lower priority, neither for build nor for use.

And devise a test bed that can batch-compile all the standard packages  
from one tree. At least for a release, the test bed must be able to  
recreate all the standard packages, from an environment consisting of the  
very same standard packages, otherwise no release.

It's not that hard to do, either. Find all the standard packages, extract  
their sources with the usual tools, build them with the usual tools,  
compare the new packages to the old ones - all this can be automated.

And it doesn't mean any change in what the maintainers or users actually  
do, except when we find bugs that way. It should, however, improve release  
quality.

If nobody else wants to do it, I could look into the mechanics of such a  
test bed. Something like a test bed package, that just needs access to a  
local mirror and a large enough bootable partition to work on, so that  
everybody who wants to can do this test - the more people do this, the  
faster we find those bugs.

Comments?


MfG Kai


--
Please respect the confidentiality of material on the debian-private list.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com