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

Re: Wayland & Unity -- any repercussions on Debian?

Sven Hoexter:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:13:04PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote:
>> But I tend to agree with what another poster said: Ubuntu may be the
>> right place to try things like this. Debian isn't, but it still may
>> profit from the experience. Without being a Ubuntu fanboy, I hope this
>> experiment won't damage their reputation.
> There've been times in the past when Debian was the playground to
> introduce new cool technology.

When was that the case? I use Debian since potato and I never had this
impression. But I might have missed that particular image in the first
one or two years.

> It's strange that nowdays people expect Debian to stay away from it.
> It even reverts the upstream/downstream relationship with Ubuntu.

That's not true anymore for many packages. Ubuntu tried to make
cutting-edge solutions usable by everyone almost from the start.

> I'm not sure if I'd call that an improvement but it somehow
> demonstrates a lack of manpower in Debian because otherwise someone
> would've already packaged wayland for Debian.

I am unsure whether this is about manpower only. Debian's answer usually
is "we just need someone to package it", but there's more to it.

People will probably name a lot of counterexamples, but my impression is
that Debian is currently unable to push any big changes forward. Even
"internals" like multiarch don't happen. Maybe package maintainers have
too much power over their packages, maybe it's just too much
bikeshedding or personal attacks. And one could probably argue that the
decision making process isn't designed for big changes in the first
place. I don't know.

I think the best change since I-don't-know-when is the recently passed
GR concerning "non-packaging contributors". I hope it pulls in a lot of
people with a different point of view than the regular package

I worry about people thinking I have lost direction.
[Agree]   [Disagree]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: