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

Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:00:35AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:

> In my opinion, Debian has a "higher barrier to entry", in comparison to
> kernel development, which makes it "less free"

The barriers are not so high for those willing to put their own time and 
effort into creating sound technical solutions.

For everyone else, they can use the publically-available tools to create 
their own apt-gettable archive.  While lowering the barriers to entry 
might give more people warm fuzzies, this is no way to protect the 
quality of the Debian distribution.

> Consider that if you want to create your own separate kernel tree, all you
> need is a working ftp site to stick your patched kernel upon.  See recent
> discussion on kernel traffic, in fact there were complaints too many
> splinter trees are being created.

Consider that if you want to create your own separate Debian-like 
distro, all you need is a working ftp site...  And consider that not 
everything that an individual might want to do belongs in Debian.

> In comparison, I suppose the raging debate of KDE in /opt could be ended if
> Eray made a set of packages called kdebase3-eray, koffice-eray, etc, all
> the same as the "default" packages but placed in /opt.  But is that a wise
> solution to make splinter packages?  Is it better to torture the ftpadmins
> and the mirrors by creating numerous almost identical packages, or is it
> better for the developers to terrorize each other via NMUs?

Eray could certainly make such a set of packages.  Who would be 
uploading them to Debian, given that Eray is not a DD?  It seems that 
all the developers interested in this issue disagree with Eray.  What 
other outcome would you hope for here, other than a) Eray conceding that 
there is merit in the way Debian structures its filesystem or b) Eray 
creating splinter packages?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp57299XeOin.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: