Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jul 2005 20:16 UTC
Two companies previously mentioned as being involved with the project, Mandriva and Turbolinux, appear to not be participating at this time. Progeny Linux Systems continues to leading the way.
Thread beginning with comment 3641
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-11
"Ian (Debian founder's) comments - http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10256"
That was a terribly poorly written piece. Ian says of Ubuntu:
---
It's diverged so far from Sarge that packages built for Ubuntu often don't work on Sarge. And given the momentum behind Ubuntu, more and more packages are being built like this. The result is a potential compatibility nightmare.
---
How is this new? Debian isn't compatible within its *own* branches. As the Stable distribution ages, packages built for Testing and Unstable won't work on it either, and sites such as backports.org will once again have to step in to fill the void.
"Improper credit - http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10474"
This was addressed in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00257.html. As Matt Zimmerman pointed out, this issue is hardly Ubuntu-specific:
---
"I think all other distributions based on Debian do change the Maintainer field."
Having looked only briefly, I can say that this is not true in general. If you examine only the distributions I mentioned above, you will find source and binary packages, modified and unmodified, rebuilt binaries or Debian binaries, with modified and unmodified Maintainer fields.
---
If you read the whole thread, you'll see there are pros and cons to each approach. If they keep the maintainer field as-is, they risk the Debian devs' ire when Ubuntu users contact them about packages that, despite what the Maintainer: field says, they do *not* actually maintain; if they change it to avoid this, others scream about stealing credit. It's a lose-lose situation.
"Security problems for Debian - http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11088"
This has nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu.
"Now see Ubuntu people's comments that Debian isnt necessary anymore."
Please indicate which Ubuntu developers said this, and where. As indicated in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg00262.html, the Ubuntu devs themselves are keen to be informed of any examples of such hostility:
---
"some package maintainers are not too happy about Debian"
Is this judgement based on some experience you had with an Ubuntu developer? I'd like to hear about it, because this is certainly not the common case, and there is an unfortunate amount of myth and rumour on this subject.
---