On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 12:50:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > *** The interested parties of the LCC should pick Debian as a base and > Debian should make this possible. *** > Rather than everybody just throwing all their stuff in together and > mixing it up. > Of course, this would also mean for Debian to change. Debian is free > and solid today, but not predictable. Thus: > * We should commit to strict release cylces of a base system others > (and Debian itself) can build value upon. This seems to be the same definition of "commit" as in "Novell is committed both to providing customers with standardized Linux technology and to simplifying ISVs' and IHVs' Linux certification efforts."[1] that is, to quote Hamlet, "words, words... words." While it might make a good April Fool's joke to ask Novell and Red Hat to standardize on Debian, we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off timely releases, and it would be a true fool who today would bank on future Debian release schedules before we've demonstrated that time-based releases are organizationally possible for us. > * We should proabably also commit to a set of core architectures which > *need* to be bug-free on release, while the rest *should* be, but > would not delay the release. Er, what would be the point of making a stable release for an architecture if we know that it's broken? But perhaps you meant that the architectures would be dropped from the release. > * We should look into having a reality-check with respect to licensing > and the way we treat each other. This wording seems to imply a particular outcome of any licensing "reality check". Perhaps you meant to post it to one of the many easy-to-find DFSG flamewars in Debian's recent history, instead of to a thread discussing LCC's significance to Debian. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer [1] http://linux.about.com/b/a/129063.htm
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature