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

Re: where do NEW packages go?



#include <hallo.h>
Jeroen Dekkers wrote on Sun May 19, 2002 um 01:47:35PM:

> YOU are actually one of those problems, you are somebody who
> downgrades grave bugs to wishlist because the Hurd is unreleased. I

So? The w32 guys may argument the same way. You think that Hurd is the
better POSIX OS, I think it is equivalent, but still having important
structural problems that need to be fixed.

> don't need to write a FAQ about that, it's already documented that if
> a package doesn't build it's a grave bug. 

I refuse to thread arch-specific problems as RC bugs as long as this
arch is not to be released with.

> Yeah we know the Hurd is an unreleased architecture and the bts
> doesn't understand that, that's why we file the bug as important
> instead of grave. But that doesn't mean that the bug is wishlist, it's

Your opinion. If the upstream cares about portability and has an own
list of supported architectures, he should be involved! If a package
does not appear on the list of supported systems, you do not have any
right to request the "bug" to be fixed by Debian people.
End-of-discussion.

> still a grave bug. This is all documented, no need for me to write it
> down another time.

Where? Why do you not start discussions with pointing to such
"documents"? I do not read debian-hurd mailing list, and I cannot remember
any references of such docs on debian-devel.

> And of course people reinvent the wheel. Do you know why? Because some
> people just don't want to cooperate to do it together all at once.

Debian is based on cooperation.

> > What is the problem? Make it /lib/exec and it is FHS compliant *g*.
> 
> The problem is that binaries from *BSD won't run on Debian *BSD and we
> have to change every GNU package and the GNU coding standards. 

Then modify the policy after having a consens. Unfortunately, this
action has to wait till Woody has been released because of the current
release strategy (I won't make any comments about it's pros/contras
here).

> If you look at portability and compatiblity, those 'linux people' are
> just as worse as Microsoft, the company they hate so much. The
> difference is just that they use free software and the biggest part of
> the GNU system. And I think that's a problem, because I want GNU/Hurd
> to be compatible and portable.

You make a conclusion from few Debian-internal problems to the whole
Linux comunity - not a good point to start, you know...

> > > compatible. Other than that, the only OS specific annex is for
> > > GNU/Linux. No BSD too. The FHS is just GNU/Linux, nothing more. Don't
> > 
> > It does not mean GNU/Linux and only this duo. It may be your personal
> > interpretation, not the common one.
> 
> Can you give me another OS which is compliant with the FHS?

Same here. Sounds like an indirect proof without contrary facts.

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
Freie Software ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner
selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit.           (Nach Immanuel Kant, 1784) 

Attachment: pgpJUjLcl2KdA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: