Re: Linux Core Consortium
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:13:58 -0800, Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> said:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hmm. I am not sure how to take this: either you are spoiling for a
>> fight, or you do not take your duties as a developer very
>> seriously.
>>
>>
> I was taking the implications of your statements farther than you
> intended, in order to get you to give them additional thought. This
> is a common rhetorical device. You should consider that I might be
> using it before you get to "he's crazy or irresponsible" :-)
So it was inflammatory, then. Comes under spoiling for a fight.
> I looked for core ABI packages that you maintain. The closest I
> found was libselinux1. You had a half-megabyte (uncompressed) patch
> for that, which it turns out is because your arch repositories and
> other arch-related cybercrud are in there. Probably this is common
> in debian diffs. When I filtered that out, I got this:
Rather than look at new, hectically maintained packages that
have yet to see real use, try my standard packages -- make, or
flex.
Make has had four separate lines of development integrated
into it, apart from upstream -- one is trivially updating the
autotools, another is additional i18n documentation, yet another is a
varbuf fix, apart from other, minor debian tweaks,
Flex is far more interesing. It has been broken up into
flex-old, and flex, and each branch has several independent fixes in
them -- is a listing of the branches involved.
flex--autotools-refresh--2.5
flex--debian--2.5
flex--devo--2.5
flex--doc-fix--2.5
flex--m4-quotes-fix--2.5
flex--non-asni-fn-fix--2.5
flex--str-fix--2.5
flex--stream-ptr-fix--2.5
flex--unistd-fix--2.5
flex--old-c-fixups--2.5
flex--old-debian--2.5
flex--old-devo--2.5
flex--old-doc-fixes--2.5
flex--old-i18l-fix--2.5
flex--upstream--2.5
Now, separate out the devo branch -- which is the integration
branch, this is still a fair shake from just packaging any old thing
upstream slings at us.
>> # if defined(__alpha__) || defined(__mips__)
This was a minor FTBS issue for arches upstream does not
have.
> It seems to me to be the sort of thing we'd be able to come to
> agreement about across LCC. IMO Debian is ahead of the others as far
> as policy is concerned, and acceptance of much of the Debian policy
> manual into LCC would be the first order of business for me.
So, which version of flex you think you want to ship? The old
one, which is POSIXLY correct, but does not work with modern g++, or
the new one that is threaded, renterant, works with modern compilers,
and disdains POSIX?
>> I am not just swilling pap sight unseen into Debian's repository,
>> and my work is what makes it different from outsourcing the package
>> upstream.
>>
>>
> Here you are making an assumption that I feel is not warranted. You
> assume that the other distributions concerned with this matter will
> wish to run rough-shod over Debian's policies and your own quality
> process, without giving you a say. We have no reason to believe that
> yet.
Are other distributions willing to abide by Debian policy? If
so, I may come around to favour us participating even now.
manoj
--
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: