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.
Thomas
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: heads up
- From: Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
- References:
- heads up
- From: Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
- Re: heads up
- From: Marcus Brinkmann <marcus.brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>