On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 02:26:36AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > But upstream people are creating packages wether we like it or not, and > they're mostly RPM packages. so what? who cares! we ignore their useless packages and make our own. i will ignore the proprietary software issue since proprietary software is and always will be completly and fundementally broken in so many numerous ways that its pointless to discuss. > And because of the existance of apt-get (which i support of course), > putting dpkg packages in the upstream's websites doesn't make much sense. exactly so who cares whether they make a .deb or not. if they really want to make .debs right they should apply for new maintainer and do it the Right Way. otherwise we will make our own correct packages regardless. > So even when a .deb exists, you won't see it in the website. This doesn't > mean anything to us, but it does to possible newcomers to Debian. They > may believe that Debian is a minor distro. so? i am more interested in debian being a technologically superior, 100% Free Software distribution geared towards experts and clueful people. not naive and clueless lusers. > I try to but, you know, it takes time and it seems we cannot package them > all, not faster than the upstream people are doing. what? rubbish. there are 6000 packages in woody, and 4000 in potato, i very rarely find a package not in debian. the only one i really have now is galeon, that was only because debian didn't have a real mozilla package. (ok so thats two) as for up to date, most everything in sid is quite up to date with more recent upstream. > yes, but according to those LSB statements, now our packages are less "standard". Who Cares! > I wonder why we just can't drop the LSB and limit adhering to POSIX. given as shoddy as this thing appears to be im all for that. or rather follow it where it makes sense, and ignore (and laugh at) it where its retarded (like that stupid bin ownership on /usr/bin or whatever) > Debian won't be only a matter of GNU/Linux in a near future: > GNU (Hurd), GNU/BSD, GNU/Win32 so perhaps adhering to the "Linux Standard Base" > will stop making sense... i always thought LSB was misguided for this very reason, why should the BSD's be excluded? (of course there is already a standard its called POSIX but anyway). then again all the LSB is for is proprietary crap, i myself could not give less of a damn about such things. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpH_Si9ixGj8.pgp
Description: PGP signature