Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: Re: Deficiencies in Debian]
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 05:52:23AM -0700, Jonathan Walther wrote:
> http://reactor-core.org/linux-reference.html explains that.
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Gee, I thought we had a base section...and ummm, priorities like
> > "Standard", "Optional", etc... How about just fine tuning what we have
> > (which is exactly what you're desribing) instead of wanting to gut and
> > rebuild our whole philosophy.
Sorry, but that philosophy does not fit well into Debian's current
structure, and I doubt it ever will. While this is a great idea (not an
original one, but nice just the same), it is not the end all solution to
Debian's so-called "problems". Maybe there could be other distributions
(slackware perhaps?) that would take on this model, or start a new dist
around it, but Debian's idealogy of having seperate maintainers control
each of their packages around a policy is too different (and personally I
like it better anyway).
I think everyone in all these threads is trying to conform Debian to what
_they_ think is the correct way, but Debian is built on non-conformance
(not as in standards, but in our internal philosophy and structure). Fine
tuning is all that's needed. We have a structure which defines base
packages as well as a set of priorities. These can be used with the
propoer tools to create a base system (we just need someone to do it). I
don't think we will ever see a "one tarball builds all" setup like
FreeBSD from Debian. The FreeBSD system was built like that from the
ground up, and Debian is already settled into what it does (and IMHO, we
do it well).
Ben
Reply to: