On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 03:17:18PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > Even if you missed it on some of the news sites, let me tell you: > DCC will not be a fork. Uh, yes it will. You're going to need to have your own packages to implement LSB 3.0 compliance, and they're not going to end up tracking either testing or unstable. You might be going to go to special lengths to avoid the problems associated with forks, but it's still a fork. > The "Debian" in the name, that's confusing some so much, Dude, there are plenty of instances where third parties get to call things "Debian" without there being a problem. > is neither meant to be a trademark violation nor shall it be used for > something that is not Debian. Instead if means that the core is built from > Debian and as part of Debian. Well, hey, guess what: you don't get to decide if it'll be "part of Debian"; the maintainers of the respective packages/systems do. If you're willing to accept that -- and consequently accept a "no" to LSB compliance until etch is released or later, eg -- then great, you're completely correct in what you say above. But if you're not willing to accept that -- and I certainly hope you're not -- then what you're doing is *not* a part of Debian, any more than Ubuntu is. > Please take my, and I assume the remaining companies will agree, apologies > for launching DCCA before talking to you all, but there were some marketing > needs. DCC shall become an official Debian subproject asap. I certainly hope not, at least until you've learnt where the boundary is between speaking on behalf of yourself and speaking on behalf of Debian. The above crosses it, eg -- what makes you think Debian wants to accept as an official subproject a group who issues press releases claiming to be "Debian Core" when, you know, you're not? Or, even if we want to accept such a group, what makes you think we could trust it? Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature