Re: "Why" Debian Common Core Alliance? Why not Debian?
Am Dienstag, 23. August 2005 06:13 schrieb Anthony Towns:
> 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.
Why? Would you care to explain this?
> You might be going to go to special lengths to avoid the problems
> associated with forks, but it's still a fork.
And this one too, please.
> > 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.
So, one more case where you could help me by explaining your statement. If
there are plenty of instances without a problem, why is this one 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
But I do decide which packages I upload, don't I?
> 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
I think LSB compliance is a release goal for etch. Please correct me if I'm
wrong, but wouldn't that mean that changes have to go into sid before etch is
> 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.
So you hope we are doing this that are *not* a part of Debian?
> > 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.
Where did I ever say I was talking 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?
Since you certainly know the boundary you mentioned above I take it this is
your opinion and not Debian's, right?
This group never called itself the "Debian Core". I searched all internal
communications but did not find anyone mentioning this there either. Would
you care to send me a link, where you got that information from?
As far as trust is concerned I do not understand you yet again I'm afraid. I
could as well ask you why I should trust you. yet still I'm running packages
that you are maintaining on my system, so apparently I do trust you, despite
having never met you in person.
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!