Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You use the LCC version available to you at the time you release, > whatever that is. It may make sense for you to schedule your release to > come some months after the LCC's, but I can't see that you have to do > everything modulo 18 months.
I think this is a hideously bad idea, and I say this as a representative of an institutional user of Debian that has been hurt by the lack of ISV support. Having Oracle support Debian would be great, but not if it comes at the cost of Debian's ability to make its own fixes and releases of core libraries and toolchain components. One of the reasons why we chose Debian in the first place is that the packages that come out of the Debian project are simply higher quality, in large part because they themselves are maintained in an open-source fashion rather than as proprietary packages maintained by single vendors controlled by commercial and economic restraints. If I wanted Red Hat's broken libc maintenance process, I know where to find it. We explicitly chose Debian because it's *better* than Red Hat in the core system maintenance that we care about. I think that tying core Debian packages to the Red Hat boat anchor is a horrible, horrible idea. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>