The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: dpkg issues

On Feb 20, Philippe Troin wrote
> 
> On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:51:00 PST Bruce Perens (bruce@pixar.com) wrote:
> 
> > From: Stuart Lamble <lamble@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>
> > > I'd really hate to see dpkg disappear, at least at this early stage of
> > > the game.. especially given the amount of effort that has been put into
> > > creating the Debian distribution, based around dpkg.
> > 
> > We should be asking orselves if "dpkg" is Debian. We have a good
> > distribution, and changing package managers will not change that.
> > We will have to give up a few of our present goals - for example
> > we should be distributing the system as a suite of packages that all
> > work with each other and are upgraded all at once, rather than upgrading
> > a piece here and a piece there while we cross our fingers and hope the
> > dependencies are right. That's the main thing we sacrafice in giving
> > up dpkg. However, we give up a lot of headaches at the same time.
> 
> Giving up headaches, surely, but giving up flexibility too.
> Dpkg is powerful. I don't know rpm as much as I know dpkg too :-)
> The idea of partial (one package) upgrades is a nice thing.
> I think we shouldn't give up dpkg. Instead, let's write a nicer interface to dpkg than dselect (is there a theme here ?).
> For me dpkg _is_ the most proeminent feature of debian. It would be a shame to abandon it.

If RPM has advantages over dpkg, shouldn't we concentrate our efforts on
getting those advantages into dpkg?

I don't think it's a particularly good idea to move to RPM, because it
essentially makes Debian (a non-commercial entity -- Software in the Public
Interest and all that jazz) dependent on Red Hat (in it for the moolah). Not
that I oppose making money or anything like that, but it's not in our best
interest to depend solely on our main "competitor" deciding to keep
licensing its own code [RPM] under the GPL.  [In case you haven't noticed,
the GPL does nothing to prevent the software's authors from hijacking the
software themselves.]

Having said that, from what I've seen of RPM it's certainly a lot easier to
rebuild packages from source with it (and since that's my primary function
here as an m68k maintainer, anything to help with that is good).
dpkg-source -x chokes on probably 30% of the packages I run it on.

Of course, this is probably a "grass is greener on the other side of the
fence" deal.  I just get the feeling that going to RPM will bite us on the
ass in some way we don't expect.

Well, enough rambling from me ;).


Chris
-- 
==========================================================================
|    Chris Lawrence    |                  My home page:                  |
| <quango@themall.net> |       http://www.clark.net/pub/lawrencc/        |
|                      |                                                 |
|  Amiga A4000/040 and |     Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5:      |
|   Linux/m68k 2.1.26  | <*> http://www.hyperion.com/lurk/lurk.html <*>  |
==========================================================================


--
Please respect the confidentiality of material on the debian-private list.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com