Neil Williams wrote: > I chose Debian as a development platform for my own reasons and my > decision was "not deemed to be wise" in the eyes of some of my upstream > colleagues. As the newbie to that particular team, I was under > significant pressure to "upgrade to Fedora or SuSE". Debian needs to > reclaim the respect of upstream development teams and part of that is > making it *a lot* easier to do upstream development on Debian without > needing to become a DD as well. Debian is respected as a > distribution for users because of the multiple architecture support and > the patches and bug reports that are forwarded upstream - what is > missing (IMHO) is respect for Debian as the distribution of choice for > upstream development itself. Are you generalising from your one poor personal experience with a non-Debian-friendly upstream, or do you have a significant body of data that I don't about masses of upsteams who are not Debian friendly? My impression has always been that a significant proportion of upstreams use Debian, or are at least familiar with it. I base this on, amoung other things, interacting with hundreds of different upstreams whose packages I have maintained in Debian, as well as working in linux companies and personally knowing a lot of upstream developers. The only significant documentation that is missing in Debian that I know of is GFDL licensed docs which have been removed from main. Aside from that, if a library is missing documentation, it's missing it because it's not available upsteam either. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature