Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] OFF-TOPIC bi-arch request WAS: ISO generation

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Karsten Behrmann <BearPerson AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] OFF-TOPIC bi-arch request WAS: ISO generation
  • Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:06:07 +0100

Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com> wrote:
> Just curious why do you keep bringing up bi-arch support at the drop of
> a hat? I didnt even mention sorcery in that email...Its like everything
> is seen with this lens that distorts whatever is being discussed to a
> bi-arch discussion.
>
> Please try not to stray WAY off-topic in this discussion. This is a
> discussion about iso generation.
>
> I will stick with what I said in the meeting, which you didnt quite seem
> to understand, but I'll repeat for repitition sake :) Maybe it will get
> through this time? Lets see if it does.
>
> bi-arch is a feature of both the iso and sorcery, if you take a look
> at sorcery bugs theres quite a few other things to do already, if you
> look at the iso team, we dont even have a consensus on how we're going
> to make isos or a reasonable installer, why would we try to spread our
> (as you say) "already too small team" over another feature that only 10
> people need? If and when the iso team is going to commit to having
> bi-arch iso's and we have a consensus on iso generation (!) sorcery
> will be there with bi-arch support. As it stands currently like i said,
> we dont even have the basics down yet, we have a very small iso team,
> we have a very small sorcery team, why would we implement your fringe
> feature over having an iso that the majority of the x86 world could use?
<snip>

I agree. We are currently not in a state to worry about new features.
At least the ISO team is busy pulling itself together and moving from a
centralized, one-man development to a decentralized team development.
Our main focus is to get the ISO back to stable and friendly.

Honestly, I am not so much concerned about a few new users that won't use
SMGL because we don't have bi-arch support. I'm worried about a lot of
users that won't use SMGL because it has a buggy installer.
If we were to simply implement features for our existing crowd, I almost
fear the developers would die out because some burn out and no new ones
are there that might step in.

There's a reason all feature requests are in bugzilla. So we can mark them
according to how current and critical we rate them. There is a reason
some of them are marked Post-1.0 or "untargetted future release".
There is a reason team leads like Andrew reject or at least resent fixes
for those bugs.

So, 1. We are NOT going to implement bi-arch anytime soon
2. Hands off those bugs not marked 0.9.3-0.9.4 or unspecified, ISO team!

So Far,
Karsten

Attachment: pgpfYmwinIdlZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page