Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better
Xavian-Anderson Macpherson wrote:
> 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
Hmm, did you notice that there are about 100 kernel forks as well?
> 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
No. That's only true for his own maintained kernel, that's not true for the
ac- mm- riel- and other trees.
> 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!
And too many people discussing things they don't have a clue about...
Regards,
Joey
--
Whenever you meet yourself you're in a time loop or in front of a mirror.
Reply to: