Re: Political climate of Debian
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 15:11 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> This (which Erinn mentioned in her original mail):
>
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
>
> The full document is not exatcly short, but if you read the first part
> of it (until "Contributions and Support documents"), you should get a
> good overview of what's wrong with the GFDL.
Having read that document, I agree that the GFDL shouldn't be kosher for
use on Debian stuff in any way. I don't have much of any experience with
legalese things, but it seemed pretty straightforward.
> No, they are autobuilt by dedicated machines. [Extra bit: The reason
> for the proposal to reduce the number of architectures is not the work
> load that 11 architectures mean for individual maintainers, but for a
> small number of developers (e.g., the Release Managers).]
So *that's* what people are talking about when they say something along
the lines of "the buildd's are backed up," etc. Or so I assume. Thanks
for clearing that up.
Another question that's been on my mind from time to time: how do
package maintainers deal with packages that have upstream authors, but
are sort of "customized" for debian in their packages? Do they have some
way of easily re-doing the changes that they've made when packaging new
upstream releases? (e.g. Firefox has a different icon, etc... I can't
seem to think of any good examples at the moment.)
Reply to: