Fwd: Debian Installer etch beta 1 released

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:41:03PM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> > Uhm yes.  But atm I think it's more important to decide which of the three plans
> > I proposed in that mail we're going to follow.  I think it didn't get any reply
> > back then..  what's your opinion?
> 
> Well, I would choose b), but my opinion is completely unimportant.
> I would expect there will be some requirements from ftpmasters, among them
> rule "main must be rebuildable within main".

This hasn't always been accomplished (for example, on hurd-i386).  Also,
ftp-masters often aren't very verbose.  So if they don't say anything in this
regard, we'll still need to figure out.

> > What do you mean?  The source is in svn, 
> 
> Last changelog entry in 
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/glibc-bsd/trunk/glibc-2.3/debian/changelog?op=file
> is about 2.3-1+kbsd.10 not about 2.3-1+kbsd.11

Looks like Aurelien forgot to commit it.  I just fixed it (the change reported
in .changes is trivial).

> >   a) Technical problems with dak persist.  What would you put in the
> >   Architecture field?
> 
> I haven't been aware about this.
>  
> >   b) We need stuff in unstable.  Having it in experimental is less useful than
> >   having it in unreleased.
> 
> Will be possible to have them in experimental AND unreleased 
> before day D (inclusion in official archive), and reuploaded 
> in official unstable after ?

If we don't solve the technical problems, I don't think so (unless we can
convince ftp masters to allow very weird things with our packages, which I
think is not a good idea to even propose).

> Due to showed problems it might be better to wait before inclusion,
> but problem with missing BTS will persist.

We could ask the BTS maintainers to add virtual packages, like "kernel",
"general", etc.  Feel free to give it a try.

-- 
Robert Millan