Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@rosebud.sps.queensu.ca> writes: > I still think we need more discussion on this. I see three main problems > > - namespace pollution: there *will* be bug reports on recompiled standard > packages from those sites, and it will be confusing as these carry the > _same names_ as our 'official' packages. This will fill the bug > system. Don't we have enough real bugs to fix? Everybody has my permission to flame anybody who sends a bug report to the Debian bug system for a non-Debian package. > - we are spreading ourselves to thinly, Debian 2.0 looks as if it will > be overdue. This will lead to a mad rush (anyone remembering the 1.2 > release ). Getting a good Debian 2.0 serves _all_ our user including > those who want 'bleeding-edge brandnew but only from stable'. I don't think the Debian developers need concern themselves with people who recompile packages from unstable for use with stable. In fact if more people use the cutting edge packages, we will discover the bugs faster. Not all bugs are libc5/libc6 related. I assume if somebody has made a non-maintainer libc5 package, and receives a bug report, they will probably check the "real" Debian package from unstable. If the bug is there too, they can legitimately file a bug with Debian (maybe even a patch to fix it). > - are we sure we want to focus on this? I for once would be much happier > if Jim could devote his endless energy to dwww as that _will_ make > Debian better, and helps Debian to keep the edge. It should only take me a day or so to set it up. On the other hand, I've got some hefty plans for dwww - I can see several months of happy hacking on that one. (It's got Second-System disease - baaaad) Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpPL24CFyZVp.pgp
Description: PGP signature