Re: Canonical's business model
On 1/12/06, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
> Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the
> > lack of collaboration and give Debian something back. For example: I
> > don't remember too much people caring about PGI (Progeny) and after
> > that anaconda "port" to say that they weren't contributing the
> > installer efforts to us, even when d-i was already there.
>
> FWIW, progeny uploaded pgi to Debian (I forget if it ever made it out of
> incoming) and have contributed back other tools like pickaxe too (pity
> we haven't tried to use it and are still stuck with the Evil that is
> debian-cd). I think it was pretty clear by the time their anaonda port
> came around that Debian was not very interested it it except possibly as
> a fallback if d-i failed to materialize.
AFAIK, PGI reached our repositories but my point was that nobody
complained that if they're doing the things in the right way. Were all
the Progeny patches (i'm not talking about new packages) listed,
informed, considered, or even reviewed to Debian ? We're doing
considerations about Canonical way that should be involve at least
Progeny too, since we're listed at partners.
--
Gustavo Franco
Reply to: