Re: Ubuntu and packages not in Debian article fitting for DPN?
First off, Apologies for the previous blank email spam.
The point in the articles favor from my perspective is that it does outline some possibilities for collaboration and highlights (just in case the readers didn't know) that in some cases Debian and Ubuntu are doing similar work and would likely benefit from ongoing collaboration.
when wrapping up this week's issue of the DPN we (that is Alexander
Reichle-Schmehl and myself) noticed that there's an article included
that in our view isn't really that fitting for the DPN topic-wise.
The article in question is the "Ubuntu and packages not in Debian"
article that basically sums up this blog post.
Just to chime in as the writer of the summary, I also found it to be a bit of a strange topic to be addressing. But I saw it on the TODO list and had some free time so I thought I would try my hand at writing a summary. From my perspective, I'm not attached to the piece and did find the article itself to be somewhat targetted towards Ubuntu users. All of which is to say, i'm not particularly attached to seeing it in the DPN, I was just trying to knock an item off the TODO list :) If you feel that the spin/summary of the article is what makes the article irrelevant, please feel free to ammend it!
In our perception this
post talks about the quality of packages in Ubuntu and we don't really
see its relevance for the DPN readers, especially since it explicitly
deals with packages *not* in Debian.
We don't want to arbitraryly remove contributions, so we would like to
have a few more opinions on that article and whether or not in should be
included in the next DPN. In our view only the blog post is not really
fitting. If there are any follow-ups or implications that also touch
Debian the article could become more relevant but in the current state
we'd rather leave it out.
What do you think?