On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 03:49:47PM +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > > Ok, since this made the headlines on Phoronix I should probably correct > some misconceptions and explain a bit more to the greater public.
For the record, I'm not opposed to this but given how late things have gotten in the cycle it seems rather ambitious. I definitely agree it's not something we would want to diverge with Debian on. In particular, I'm concerned about the number of packages which would need to be updated for this change, since we could easily miss something or introduce a typo, and time is short to get sufficient testing, triaging, and patching done prior to release. Also, while configuration fixes can be easy to apply, review, and sru, certain kinds of configuration changes can cause problems during installation, so if we don't get all such issues fixed before the CD's are cut, it could make for a lot of buggy installation experiences. I do not know how large to quantify this risk though. Perhaps its minor. On the other hand, I do agree that the udev approach for configuration is funky. The syntax style of the configuration files is quite a bit different than people are used to and will be irritating for people who have to maintain both LTS systems and Lucid+N systems. From our end, there will be some differences in maintaining things, but I'm less concerned here: I think it'll play out that for the next 3-4 months we'll be doing fixes for Lucid, then after that will focus on Lucid+1 and the amount of udev-rules patching we do will probably drop off quite a bit. I expect a lot of the LTS X maintenance work will be done by the new hardware enablement X person, so as long as they understand how to do udev and xorg.conf.d rules, we should be ok on our end. Bryce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
