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

Re: where do NEW packages go?



On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 04:08:13PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The big question is if Debian (GNU/Hurd) can and/or should be the GNU
> > system.  This is probably too big a question, and is not specific enough
> > (what does it exactly mean, to be the GNU system?) and has potential to be
> > loaded by emotions.
> 
> Not being obstructed by any form of knowledge about the subject, I think
> Debian GNU/Hurd can never become the GNU system, simply because such a
> system could only be made by GNU itself, not by Debian.

Debian was once (almost) part of GNU and the relationship is still
very strong. If we are allowed to do the things we want in the Hurd
port, it's possible, but only if Debian is willing to. Without
cooperation it isn't possible, that's why I quit Debian. I rather
spend my time improving some GNU packages instead of trying to
convince some people of doing the right while they don't want to
listen anyhow. If they want to listen, I'm probably going back.

> As I see it, Debian GNU/Hurd can, at most, be a system that helps people
> install, test, hack on, and play with, the Hurd as it is now. 

It indeed helps us with that. But we want it to make a real operating
system for general use.

> It can never
> fulfill RMS' dream he wrote down in the GNU Manifesto; consider the fact
> that Debian and GNU define 'Free Software' in a different way.

Not really. The only incompatible I know of is the atistic
license. Given the fact that RMS is in the NM queue, RMS doesn't think
it's totally incompatible. There are already enough GNU developers in
Debian.

> > Frankly, I am scared to ask this question, and I don't
> > see the point in asking it right now anyway.  (So please let us not even
> > start to discuss it here.)
> 
> too late ;-)
> 
> Although I can not or do not want to define what it means to be "the GNU
> system", I don't think Debian can provide it.

It could if it's willing to, but I don't think it is. Electing RMS as
the next DPL is a nice start however. ;-)

> > I don't agree that the Hurd should simply try to implement Debian's policy
> > wherever possible, and only try to change what absolutely is impossible to
> > implement.
> 
> I should have been more clear there: Debian's hurd-i386 port should do
> so. The Hurd, of course, should do what it thinks or feels to be best; and
> if that means 'implement GNU Coding Standards to the letter', then so be
> it.
> 
> Still ...

A very big part of Debian is implementing the GNU Coding Standards
upstream. Why change it in Debian?

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org  IRC ID: jeroen@openprojects
GNU supporter - http://www.gnu.org

Attachment: pgpQqoh_YwfD5.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: