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

Andy Mortimer wrote:
> I'll stop there, but can I just say: anybody who agrees with Bruce,
> please speak up. Most of the posts I've seen so far have been against
> this, but I remember the CD issue. If I'm out of order here, please tell
> me. Although I do feel very strongly about this, I like to think that I'm
> not /totally/ unreasonable.

We -need- to support rpm, -well-.  We could support both rpm and
something else, tho that'd be more work than switching, in the long term
- and debian is here for the long haul.  alien doesn't go far enough.

Why?  When you look around on the net, nearly all unbundled linux
packages are in the form of .tar.gz and .rpm.  The net has decided to go
with .rpm.  Not RH (quite), but .rpm.

Shortly before Bruce posted his message about switching to .rpm, I had
been privately lamenting that discussion of merging .deb and .rpm had
apparently ended.

.rpm isn't equivalent to RH.  Other distributions use .rpm as well. 
Binary compatibility and the FSSTND have been good for linux; So is the
standard package format.  If debian doesn't support the already-chosen
standard package format, that's eventually going to hurt debian very
seriously, and hurt linux as a whole, a little.

It would be nice if we didn't need to compromise on this, but we do need
to, for the good of the project.  How far we go in that compromise, is a
good subject for discussion.

We should examine the impact on other distributions, of their use of
.rpm.  How has it helped, and how has it hindered?

.rpm is GPL'd.  -If- RH turns into MS (shades of _Animal_Farm_), I
expect the linux community will support taking .rpm off in another
direction, given moderate persuasion.

Bruce Perens wrote:
>If I don't see some progress in these directions, about two months will >go by and then we'll bring up this same argument again. I'm going to >stick to this issue until I see progress or we drop dpkg.

This is very appropriate, if not a tad much on the patient side.


--
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