Re: custom branding and CDDs
|--==> "AT" == Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> writes:
AT> Well, if we could increase the interest in CDD "political" I would see a
AT> way:
AT> Several people noticed that the huge package base has drawn us into
AT> a new quality of a distribution and that this quantity of packages
AT> needs a more sane handling. Until now there was no proper solution
AT> that I would know of to resolve the release cycle problem which is more
AT> or less caused by the new quality we reached.
AT> So people might be sensible enough to consider a policy change which
AT> might go into this direction (very draft thought for the moment):
AT> To increase the flexibility of Debian and increase the acceptance
AT> of Debian in enterprises and for Desktop use, very different
AT> configuration options are needed for a certain amount of packages.
AT> If there is a patch which increases the flexibilty of a package
AT> by not breaking anything at normal Debian systems the severity of
AT> this bug might be increased if there is a CDD (or derived distribution)
AT> which needs this change to prevent a fork.
AT> This is very draft wording, but I hope you get the idea. I guess if we
AT> could turn this idea into a sane wording we might probably be able to
AT> have a post-sarge change and get some power which should allow even NMUs
AT> for certain packages or to call the technical commitee to get things
AT> implemented we really need.
I do agree, this is a step that should be taken. In most of the cases
we are talking about very simple patches to the source package, that
don't affect regular operation, and shall be accepted promptly by the
maintainer.
Cheers,
Free
Reply to: