Re: Gergely and Wouter: the level of independence from other distributions?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Gergely and Wouter: the level of independence from other distributions?
- From: Gergely Nagy <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:50:22 +0100
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20120316091559.GB14637@r500-debian> (Eugene V. Lyubimkin's message of "Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:15:59 +0200")
- References: <20120316091559.GB14637@r500-debian>
"Eugene V. Lyubimkin" <email@example.com> writes:
> Do you think Debian project has enough manpower to differ (if needed)
> with other major derivatives and major non-derivatives in the important
> non-Debian-specific software choices?
Probably, yes. But being different just for the sake of it is not
something I would like to see (see below for an explanation), let alone
> Would you want Debian to borrow more from and share more with other
> distributions for the ease of maintenance and uniformity, or rather
> don't look on others and make the choices independently?
I'll touch on the sharing part first: I think we're doing a good job
there. It could certainly be improved, but nevertheless, I believe that
what we do, by working with upstreams (which indirectly helps other
distributions aswell), and by continously improving our packaging (from
which derivatives benefit a lot: there is a huge amount of packages
shipped with Ubuntu, for example, that are pretty much just rebuilds of
the Debian package). We also have maintainers who are also maintainers
in derivatives, which is also a kind of sharing (and borrowing).
As for borrowing.. that's a trickier question. I do not believe we
should blindly follow other distributions, but becoming different just
for the sake of it is counterproductive. If another distribution comes
up with a good idea, we should evaluate it too, and see if we can borrow
it, if it's worth borrowing.
While less differences between distributions would be welcomed, Debian
as a project should maintain its ability to decide its own path to
take. If that does not happen to be what other distributions chose,
While uniformity and ease of maintainance are lucrative, if that comes
with a cost of going against the wishes or ideals of the project, then
that's too high a price to pay.
Nevertheless, there are things (not neccessarily technical!) other
distributions are doing better, from which we could learn.
So, in short: I believe we're good on the sharing front (even if there's
improvements that could be made), we're not so great when it comes to
borrowing, but that's a lot harder task, too.
We can improve in both, but that must come as a result of our own
desire, not as something that feels forced upon us.