Re: Technical committee acting in gross violation of the Debian constitution
On Fri, 2014-11-28 at 13:48 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2014, Svante Signell wrote:
>
> > It will be interesting to see how many Debian Maintainers and Developers
> > will jump the ship and join them (in addition to the users). Future will
>
> I’ll tell you in the present.
>
> Github? Ugh! http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/free-software-needs-free-tools
> The rest is just as bad (mailinglists hosted somewhere in the wild too,
> etc). And the website is illegible, and I curiously wonder who is behind
> all that. But mostly rhetorically, as I’m not really interested…
(about devuan)
This has just started, give them some time, please.
>From a comment on the thread about upgrades (that don't belong to the
ctte bugs):
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg01265.html
> Do note that new installs of kFreeBSD and Hurd should not get
> systemd, but what exactly is probably up to the porters for lack
> of a CTTE decision in that.
Maybe it would be a better place for the non-linux debian-ports to be
hosted by devuan (they are currently not release candidates for Jessie):
If Debian ditch all non-linux ports, that would make life easier for all
DMs and DDS:
- no non-linux ports needing other any init than systemd, remove
alternatives
- no requirement for portable code upstream, previously forwarded by DMs
and/or bug reporters.
- no annoying bug reports for patches addressing portability, see above
(mostly ignored anyway).
- ditch all other desktop systems, just go with Gnome
- etc
- <based on the above, plenty of packages could be removed, etc>
BTW: why not rename Debian 8 Jessie to Debian Lendows(tm) 1, and perhaps
the whole distribution (Lindows was acquired by M$, that name is taken
already) Note, I'm just kidding, or? Is the Universal OS ship sinking?
Reply to: