Re: LSB 3.0 and who's doing what?
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 16:37 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> Jeff Licquia writes...
> > From there, Debian can make up its own mind what's important for it.
> I don't like this attitude and it seems to be the one that other prominent
> Debian derivatives are taking as well which is troublesome. While there is no
> license obligation to help integrate changes back into the original project
> you diverged from, I believe there is an unspoken community obligation.
Being a derivative (especially a commerical one) is a bit of a
tightrope. This is especially true when the derivative has "unfair"
clout within Debian, as Progeny currently does.
The problem is that we do not want to be seen as telling Debian what to
As for your concern about integrating changes, I fully agree, as does
Progeny management. Generally, when we haven't integrated our new stuff
into Debian, the holdup hasn't been policy, but "get off your butt and
do it" issues. :-)
> We're all in this boat together, isolating yourself and declaring the problem
> to be someone else's doesn't help. Jeff, you're the main person working on LSB
> in Debian, when you say Debian above who are you referring to?
Specifically, to Joey Schultze, in his capacity as stable release
For etch/sid, I fully intend to upload my results via the usual
channels. I don't think I was clear enough that my concerns about
Debian making up its own mind was referring to sarge exclusively.