Am Dienstag, 23. August 2005 06:13 schrieb Anthony Towns: > Uh, yes it will. You're going to need to have your own packages to > implement LSB 3.0 compliance, and they're not going to end up tracking > either testing or unstable.
Why? Would you care to explain this? > You might be going to go to special lengths to avoid the problems > associated with forks, but it's still a fork. And this one too, please. > > The "Debian" in the name, that's confusing some so much, > > Dude, there are plenty of instances where third parties get to call things > "Debian" without there being a problem. So, one more case where you could help me by explaining your statement. If there are plenty of instances without a problem, why is this one a problem? > > is neither meant to be a trademark violation nor shall it be used for > > something that is not Debian. Instead if means that the core is built > > from Debian and as part of Debian. > > Well, hey, guess what: you don't get to decide if it'll be "part of > Debian"; the maintainers of the respective packages/systems do. If But I do decide which packages I upload, don't I? > you're willing to accept that -- and consequently accept a "no" to LSB > compliance until etch is released or later, eg -- then great, you're > completely correct in what you say above. But if you're not willing to I think LSB compliance is a release goal for etch. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that mean that changes have to go into sid before etch is released? > accept that -- and I certainly hope you're not -- then what you're doing > is *not* a part of Debian, any more than Ubuntu is. So you hope we are doing this that are *not* a part of Debian? > > some marketing needs. DCC shall become an official Debian subproject > > asap. > > I certainly hope not, at least until you've learnt where the boundary is > between speaking on behalf of yourself and speaking on behalf of Debian. Where did I ever say I was talking on behalf of Debian? > The above crosses it, eg -- what makes you think Debian wants to accept as > an official subproject a group who issues press releases claiming to be > "Debian Core" when, you know, you're not? Or, even if we want to accept > such a group, what makes you think we could trust it? Since you certainly know the boundary you mentioned above I take it this is your opinion and not Debian's, right? This group never called itself the "Debian Core". I searched all internal communications but did not find anyone mentioning this there either. Would you care to send me a link, where you got that information from? As far as trust is concerned I do not understand you yet again I'm afraid. I could as well ask you why I should trust you. yet still I'm running packages that you are maintaining on my system, so apparently I do trust you, despite having never met you in person. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
