Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better
On Monday 2002 December 02 12:32, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote:
> > On Monday 2002 December 02 11:11, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > Also be aware that one cannot build _the_ binary image which works in
> > > all possible scenarios. There are reasons to build things differently.
> > Is this only due to architectures? I am primarily concerned about
> > changes made to software running on the same architectural-platform. I
> > realize that there is and must be a tree which conforms to these
> > differences. But I just want to know how much duplication can be
> > avoided on every branch of the tree? How much is necessity, and how
> > much is 'different for the sake of being different'?
> "different for the sake of being different" is called a fork
I would call them themes. But I don't have the authority .to call them
> Our job as package maintainers are to maintain the *packaging* of
> software, not to make it stand out from the packaging done by other
> Debian packages tend to be more true to the original source than those of
> other large distributions. In the past there has been problems with Redhat
> releasing a version of glibc that was not authorised by the upstream
> developers of the library, and caused lots of trouble because software
> built against the Redhat glibc was binary incompatible with official
> releases - both older and newer - of glibc. This includes closed-source
> applications like Netscape Communocator, Adobe Acrobat and RealPlayer that
> cannot be recompiled against a proper glibc.
This is why I said no one should have the right to do this. There needs to be
a rigid air-traffic control system, just as there is on any major airport.
If you want to change course, you have to get permission first, not after you
have already crashed!
> - Jonas