Re: What to do when DD considers policy to be optional? [kubernetes]
On 4/8/20 10:44 PM, Peter Silva wrote:
> doesn´t this whole discussion just mean that k8 should just not be in
> Debian?
IMO no. It means that if we have enough packaging resources (which
probably we don't, I can't tell), then we may just as well ignore an
upstream who's basically saying we should never package what they do, or
package the way they want, rather than the we we should.
> It should be a third party package, perhaps with a third party repo, and
> just not be in Debian at all.
> If any means of packaging for a Debian release results in a package that
> is essentially unsupported by upstream... what is the value of including
> it? For stuff that moves too quickly... perhaps a
> different repo like *forever-sid.d.o* could be set up... and have it
> built against releases, so people
> have current software for Debian... without it being part of Debian.
>
> That repo would have different rules for it... that loosens things up
> for this kind of hairball package that isn´t stable enough to benefit
> from Debian stability.
As a user, I'd prefer Kubernets to be in Stable if possible. I'd be one
of these users who don't care about the latest shiny feature, and prefer
something stable, supported for YEARS to come, not just 3 months.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: