Re: where do NEW packages go?
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 07:57:37PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > You want to make the GNU system a real operating system for general
> > use. Debian already is a real operating system for general use, so you
> > can't *make* it that way.
> Debian is a distribution.
That's hardly an operating system, is it? Or do you suddenly think it's no
longer necessary to call it 'Debian GNU/Linux'?
Linux is not a complete operating system. As of now, there's no complete
GNU operating system either. However, Debian is an operating system.
> The DFSG are just guidelines, not definitions.
The DFSG defines what Debian calls 'Free Software'. If that would not be
the case, then why do we call something that is not DFSG-free 'non-free'?
The DFSG is *way* too strict to be something general as a 'guideline'. In
fact, the GNU definition of Free Software fits the term 'guideline' better
in my opinion (not that there's anything wrong with that...)
> > > The only incompatible I know of is the atistic
> > > license.
> > Think FDL.
> You said "free software".
Granted. Still, it clearly shows that although for the most parts Debian
and GNU agree, there are places where they do not.
> > > A very big part of Debian is implementing the GNU Coding Standards
> > > upstream. Why change it in Debian?
> > One could also argue that a very big part of Debian implements the FHS
> > upstream. This argument is bogus.
> That would be compatible, the other way around isn't.
Bull. If not having /libexec on a BSD-system makes the ABI incompatible,
then having /libexec where it is not expected does exactly the same thing.
wouter dot verhelst at advalvas dot be
"Human knowledge belongs to the world"
-- From the movie "Antitrust"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org