[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.


Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

Reply to: