I have been tracking the Debian release goals progress for a while now, through bug-squashing parties and using various iterations of wiki pages. It's time to write down some thoughts.
First of all, I think the concept of release goals is a fantastic idea. It may be one of the most important conceptual moves in Debian of late. It allows developers to implement distribution-wide changes without having to negotiate with every package maintainer individually and without having to go through the vicious no-change-without-policy/no-policy-without-established-practice maze. It moves the focus back on operating system development instead of package hoarding.
In the future, I think we should come up with some "sexier" release goal descriptions. If you look over the current list, many of these tasks are implementation-level, without any obvious benefit to users: double-build support? no unmet recommends? Or they have incomprehensible descriptions. The pretty much only release goal that has a real user benefit, namely the piuparts cleanness, ensuring clean distribution upgrades, is both the most cryptic and actually the most neglected one in terms of development attention. Don't get me wrong, all these goals are very valid. For better or worse, the press has started to pick up these release goals to put in their various Debian release candidate timeline pre-announcement articles, and next time around we should have something cool in there. If armel support or KDE 4 integration had been release goals, the marketing effect would be better.
The next thing is tracking bugs. If you have some time on your hands, how do you find a release goal bug that you can help with? I had worked up this wiki page to help myself, but it is still too weird. The fact that bts.turmzimmer.net exists shows that the BTS is lacking features or is too hard to use or both. I'm thinking, we should regularly copy the whole BTS into an SQL database and make queries from there. Think aggregation, grouping, full-text search! I'm not familiar with the BTS internals or the LDAP gateway, but I know my SQL. So if anyone knows the other end of this deal, I'd love to chat about setting something like this up.
So then, what happens to the release goals after the release? Has this been thought through?
Obviously, some release goals become technically self-enforcing. Python 2.5 and GCC 4.3 are now the default, and anything that doesn't work with these will have permanent trouble in the future.
Release goals that implement a distribution-wide feature, such as the LSB-based init system enhancements, will really need to become part of policy after the release. Otherwise they would revert to being normal bugs without any NMU powers and the other special attention given to release goals. So over time, the support for the former release goals across packages would again decline. To keep it up, you'd either have to repeat the release goal indefinitely, which would be silly, especially when there are no problems right now, or you'd have to make it a part of policy to enforce it in the future. Essentially, you'd have to consider most release goals trial policy changes, which become permanent if successful.
Near-examples of the above are the eternal release goals of IPv6 support and LFS support. We really have these under control quite well now -- although I still wouldn't dare to call Debian or any general-purpose Linux distribution fully IPv6-ready -- but nowadays these problems are almost all upstream code problems that Debian can't really fix very well on the packaging side. So under the current approach these release goals will exist forever, or worse, will be dropped from release goal status.
And then of course, some release goals fail to be reached. These should reapply for the next release, if interest persists. The dash goal comes to mind.
By the way, we had 13 release goals. 3 are completely done, 5 are pretty much done (less than 10 bugs), 1 more looks like it could get pretty much done before the release, and 4 will most likely fail to be accomplished.
Gunnar Wolf: No, it's not
Several people have approached me (or I've stumbled upon their sites) asking me about something called Debian 5.0 Beta 2.It. Is. Not. That.
Please read clearly the announcement for Debian Installer lenny beta 2 - Yes, I understand this reached many people who are not involved in Debian but are enthusiastic users nevertheless. In short: The only thing that reached the beta is the debian-installer program (usually called just d-i), the amazing piece of code that handles a Debian installation in your system. And yes, it is meant for wide testing and work.
But please, do not take this as a preview of the new Debian release - it is not. If you install a system using this version of d-i, you will be tracking the Testing branch of Debian, and your system will be in a continuous state of flux. Yes, we do expect a freeze of Lenny in the next couple of weeks, after what it will be quite close to a Beta release (i.e. almost no new versions, no fresh software, just bug fixes). But hey - A Beta is supposed to be close to release quality. And if you look at the release-critical bugs affecting the Testing branch (green line), you will clearly see we have over 400 bugs to fix before Lenny is allowed to be called stable. And that's only one of the criteria needed to reach Lenny - Glance over at the Debian Release Management page to quickly understand the nature of changes still to come.
Oh, and of course - Even if it is not necessarily up-to-date, I have found the Wiki page created by Peter Eisentraut as an excellent place to start working whenever I have some free time: Lenny Release Goals.
so... If you are not yet working towards making Debian the best distribution ever, and Lenny the best Debian release ever, you now know where we need your help ;-)
(side note: d-i team, maybe the next announcement could use some words pointing out we are not doing a Debian beta program, just a d-i beta release?)
The (still alpha) 4.0.0 release of Samba is now in experimental. Both
Samba 3 and Samba 4 packages are likely to coexist in the archive as Samba 3 is still for a while the production code for File and Print services while Samba 4 is the development branch of the Samba team to implement Active Directory domain control (among other things).
Samba4 packages also bring a big bunch of libraries, most of which being used to related development such as Openchange.
Expect some neat new packages in experimental, then unstable, pretty soon now.
Please do NOT replace production servers running samba 3.0.* or samba 3.2.* by samba4....not yet..:-)
The samba4 packages are maintained by Jelmer Vernooij, one of the two
main developers for Samba 4 in the Samba Team (the other being Andrew
Bartlett). Jelmer is someone we should stuck out from the NM queue as soon as possible..:-)
Anyway, this is again another success of that small team we built around Samba and samba-related packaging. Thanks to all involved people (Steve Langasek, No l K the, Jelmer Vernooij, Peter Eisentraut, etc.).