Re: Linux Core Consortium
Bruce Perens <email@example.com> writes:
> You use the LCC version available to you at the time you release,
> whatever that is. It may make sense for you to schedule your release to
> come some months after the LCC's, but I can't see that you have to do
> everything modulo 18 months.
I think this is a hideously bad idea, and I say this as a representative
of an institutional user of Debian that has been hurt by the lack of ISV
support. Having Oracle support Debian would be great, but not if it comes
at the cost of Debian's ability to make its own fixes and releases of core
libraries and toolchain components.
One of the reasons why we chose Debian in the first place is that the
packages that come out of the Debian project are simply higher quality, in
large part because they themselves are maintained in an open-source
fashion rather than as proprietary packages maintained by single vendors
controlled by commercial and economic restraints. If I wanted Red Hat's
broken libc maintenance process, I know where to find it. We explicitly
chose Debian because it's *better* than Red Hat in the core system
maintenance that we care about.
I think that tying core Debian packages to the Red Hat boat anchor is a
horrible, horrible idea.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>