[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: squeak licence



Am Mittwoch, den 24.08.2005, 00:33 +0200 schrieb Geert Stappers:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 09:35:28PM +0200, David C. Weichert wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, den 23.08.2005, 17:22 +0200 schrieb michele.drechsler:
> > > I would really prefer to get the package from debian instead of having
> > > > to maintain it outside debian.
> > > >
> > > would that be simpler?
> > 
> > Maintaining packages outside Debian is fundamentally wrong on many
> > levels.
> 
> [1]
> 
> The blunt version would be:     BS
> 
> Having a archive with educational software will make debian-edu visible.
> 
> Yes, I'm promoting "duplicate effort" of building and maintaining ftp
> servers like the Debian ftp servers.

I see we disagree here. If the duplicate effort is just to accommodate
non-free software, it will backfire. A repository for tested backports
is another thing.

> It is the best signal to publishers of educational software.
> When they see the  debian-edu.org ftp server network that is
> apt-getable, then they will build their ftp server that is
> apt-getable. Publishers and others who sell software will want
> to have their own distribution channel. Please show them the good things
> of Debian packaging, including apt-get.

The good thing about Debian is getting it into main. I don't want to
have an /etc/apt/sources.list the size of a textbook. If all software
publishers make their own Debian repository I can never be sure it'll
work (Debian packaging rules will almost certainly be broken). Getting
things into main is harder, but at least you get the benefit that
everything is tested so no package will break your system. What you
suggest is like installing Sid and using Ubuntu packages. Might work,
might not, it certainly is the WRONG THING [1]


Kind regards
David

[1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/W/Wrong-Thing.html

P.S.: This is not about fundamentalism, but about doing the job the
right way, because if the job is worth doing, it should be done the
right way. Otherwise don't bother.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: