Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 04:57:17PM -0400, paul wrote:
> > > > The question is that there is more than one way to follow a standard
> > > > when alleviating a problem. And this is the case when a common BTS
> > > > becomes a very good thing (TM).
> > >
> > > I wonder how the Debian based dists (Corel, Storm, etc.) handle this.
> > > If there is enough interest among the 0 Debian based dists, then it is
> > > possible that a distributed BTS could be developed to track bugs in
> > > debs from many different sources. With a strict bug reporting format,
> > > such a tool could could determine if a bug is dist specific or common
> > > to all participating dists.
> >
> > You could determine automatically if a bug is distroX-specific for some
> > packages, but you couldn't do that automatically for packages of the same
> > name and same version. There should be quite a few packages like that in
> > distributions based on Debian, since to add functionality to Debian they
> > probably didn't have to recompile, increase the revision or rename each of
> > our packages.
>
> Participants in a distributed bts would need to cooperate in a naming and
> versioning scheme as well. with a carefully crafted scheme, dist specific
> bugs would evidence themselves as obviously as an inflamed opposable digit
> ;)
Yeah, but it would be practically impossible to coordinate our naming
schemes now. We already struggle with renamed packages...
> The problems presented by the GR are present whenever another dist is
> based on Debian. Why not have these problems addressed by Debian
> Developers and maintainers, who we already have a measure of faith in.
How, exactly?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: