Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better
On Monday 2002 December 02 10:13, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote:
> > On Monday 2002 December 02 02:50, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Why (if everything is the same), would anyone have to recomplie for
> > binaries, if the binaries were made once by the packagers and remained in
> > their original condition?
>
> Because, and your assumption es totally wrong, nothing is the same,
> rather than everything.
I was specifically speaking in the context of my (perfect world) example. I
said IF!! Not IS!! I know everything IS NOT the same. That's why I wrote
this! Here, let me make this simple. If ALL of linux, were handled in the
same way as the KERNEL, there would be no more questions as to what works and
what does not! And no, the licensing would not have to change. Because just
as the kernel is currently available to everyone, but only has one
maintainer(?), so could all of the other packages as well. I geuss now that
I have said this, I have to ask the question. Am I correct that Linus is the
only one who approves of the changes to the kernel? What about my statements
of the security models. Now I don't think source code for security patches
are made available. I still want the source code available to everyone. I
just want one person or group to be SOLELY responsible for changes in their
own packages. There are too many spoons in the pot!
>
> Regards,
>
> Joey
Reply to: