[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: derivatives and funding?

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 9:09 PM, nick black wrote:

> Updated the SprezzOS entry. BTW, @TIME@ doesn't seem to be working (at least
> according to preview -- maybe it actually does get substituted upon commit
> of change?).

Yep, that only works on save I think.

> A link to http://www.debian.org/donations seems reasonable for inclusion in
> the bottom links section on every page -- and indeed, apparently it is
> included in the first column. Including a highly visible link in the
> Derivatives Best Practices/Guidelines document seems reasonable to me.

Added to the guidelines taking into account Stefano's comments.

> In my humble opinion, Debian/SPI has gone to extraordinary lengths to
> facilitate derivatives' development, and so long as donations don't become
> somehow mandatory (see eg DistroWatch's de facto advertising requirement to
> be included in their list of distributions), there's no reason not to pass
> the hat around with a little more mendicancy.

I don't think we would ever be able to or would want to make this mandatory.

> That said, I'd like to see the pipeline for package change backflow bored a
> bit wider. This might have been answered before, but where can Debian and
> Derivative developers consult the data you used to prepare eg
> http://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/log/2012/04/26/when-a-distro-dies/? Ahhh,
> http://dex.alioth.debian.org/census/SprezzOS/patches/, I see I
> see...frankly, I suspect that the work on the "current limitations of patch
> generation" you mention on those pages might bring more net win.

Yep, lots to do on that front. Data and code are here as usual:




Reply to: