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: Old Diety page

> It hasn't changed much.  I'm quite interested in some dpkg enhancements
> (particularily with regards to installing documentation, and source
> packaging) - this document doesn't really explain how diety is
> going to interface with dpkg.

We're going over some final drafts of the user inteface (which includes
the conditional install stuff).  It's taking (as usual) longer than any
of us would like, but work is progressing.


> I'm just a bit concerned that they will come up with some major changes
> to the packaging system, and attempt to introduce them a month
> before 2.0 is released, without much public review.  A situation like
> this will undoubtedly cause a multi-month delay.
> (I might be wrong)

There is only one change to the packaging system I can think of off
hand and that is just an added (optional, really) field to the control
information.  More on that after the UI announcement...


> If we're planning on having diety in 2.0 (eta 3 months), that doesn't
> leave the diety team much time to build consensus around their ideas,
> and actually produce something.  If it's going to go into 2.0, something
> should really be showing up in "experimental" within the next month.
> That's essentially what I'm going to do with dwww.

We'll do the best we can, but we're not going to dump a sub-standard
piece of software into the distribution.  That would hurt everybody.


> If that places too much pressure on the diety team, maybe we should
> designate 2.0 (eta 3 months) as the "glibc+dwww" release, and reserve
> 2.1 (eta 6 months) as the "diety" release.

This may happen.  I'm not sure if 2.0 will be ready for "frozen" in two
months, though.


> Of course, if the diety team is much further along than what I can
> guess - 2.0 is still reasonable.
> 
> If doesn't make sense to stress out the diety developers (unless,
> of course, they enjoy that).  :-)

I must enjoy it.  I keep taking on more things to do...  <sigh>

                                          Brian
                                 ( bcwhite@verisim.com )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Generated by Signify v1.02.  For this and more, visit http://www.verisim.com/



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .