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

Re: "Why" Debian Common Core Alliance? Why not Debian?

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:16:02PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> 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.

  fork In the open-source community, a fork is what occurs when two (or
     more) versions of a software package's source code are being
     developed in parallel which once shared a common code base, and these
     multiple versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences
     between them.

"irreconcilable" is too strong a term for any sort of software; the key
difference that esr fails to capture is you've got too different code
bases -- Debian's and the DCC's -- that're being developed according to
two entirely different sets of goals. That's why Debian's, Progeny's and
Ubuntu's versions of X are forks, eg.

> > > 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?

Because your choice of name effectively discriminates against non-members.
I'm not involved with any of the companies in the DCC -- suddenly I'm
not a part of Debian's core, while Ian Murdock is; in spite of me being
a current developer, and Ian not.

> > 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?

Only if you're already the maintainer, or the package doesn't already
exist. You also don't get to decide what gets added to stable, oldstable,
testing or security.debian.org.

> > 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. 

Currently LSB 1.3 compliance is a release goal for etch, same as it was
for sarge, same as it has been since late 2003. AIUI, the release team
have tried contacting the folks interested in the LSB about updating
that for some time, and haven't received any response.

> > 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?

Well, I definitely hope you're not announcing something now that won't
be ready or useful until etch is released, which, aiui, the release team
have indicated won't be until the end of next year.

> 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?


or, for that matter,


Are you really trying to say that calling yourself "The Debian Core
Consortium" isn't calling yourself "Debian Core"? Who're you trying
to kid?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: