Fwd: Debian Installer etch beta 1 released

[Petr Salinger]

Hi all.

> Basicaly, it seems we just need d-i and the missing 24% of ported packages.  And
> in an extreme situation, we *could* even release without d-i (another issue is
> if we really want that, of course).  I also wonder how many of these 24%
> packages have patches in BTS.

Moreover the distribution of unported packages is not uniform.
Order taken from http://popcon.debian.org/source/by_inst:

top  500	  59 packages	=> 12% 
top 1000	 139 packages	=> 14%
top 2000	 340 packages	=> 17%	
top 5000	1044 packages	=> 21%

Since popcon also lists packages from stable (i.e. xfree86), 
and not-for-us (gcc-2.95, linux-2.6, ...) the numbers are even better.


I would say that today kfreebsd-i386 is missing namely rebuildable glibc,
based on glibc-2.3.5 or better 2.3.6. Since it will probably change more 
frequently than stock debian/linux glibc, it might be better to have it in 
completely separate source package. This also allow to have linux glibc 
2.4-based and kfreebsd glibc still 2.3-based. Another bonus is separated BTS.

It would be nice, if all other specific kfreebsd-i386 packages 
have already BTS. It is the best place for patches from 
unexperienced kfreebsd developers (as I am).
To have source packages in official debian archive will be needed also 
for plan c) from 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/glibc-bsd-devel/2005-October/000568.html
It will also prevent threads like 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/thrd2.html#00541 .
I am afraid, that today kfreebsd glibc is not only unrebuildable, 
but it is also without source, even in svn changelog is not 2.3-1+kbsd.11 mentioned.

Could be i.e. kfreebsd-kernel-headers uploaded into experimental now ?
I think that NEW queue processing takes some days/weeks.

Petr