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

Re: heads up

Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:

> I am not even trying to comprehend where these rules come from, or
> what their sanity is.  I am just going to accept whatever comes out of
> the Debian cabal as long as I can morally accept it.

See debian-devel.

> Does this mean eternally, or only for one week?  Who is going to
> verify this?

Verification isn't the point; if people can't be trusted not to lie,
then everything is broken already.  But what it means actually, is
uncertain.  I think it's a practical criterion, not a strict one.

> > 4. the port must include basic unix functionality, e.g resolving
> >    DNS names and firewalling
> The firewalling requirement was specifically put in there for us, I
> suppose.  AJ was quite upset when I told him we don't have it (years
> ago).  The people asking for this seem to think that having a working
> firewall is some kind of proof of something, I don't know what.  

So, I've asked "what features are implied here", and we can simply add
that feature.

> > 5. binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source
> >   (required, among other reasons, for license compliance)
> That was always a requirement.

We've done it, but it's actually a change; there used to be procedures
for porters to have private source for things.  

> But even then I suggest to just reject this rule.  The software in
> Debian is heavily biased towards GNU/Linux.

Most packages are not.  Most packages are just ordinary libraries,
gnome apps, etc.

It also merely requires that it build, *not* that it fully function.
Let's not poke at that one, and just use it in our advantage.


Reply to: