On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 12:42:40PM -0600, Paul E Condon wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 10:34:27AM -0600, Javier Vasquez wrote:
[heavy snippage dude] > > > > You mentioned debian commitment to FSF and its social contract, as > > very good reasons by themselves to run debian. I totally agree. > > However debian is not the only distro with such commitment. Actually > > sourceMage picked debian social contract and modified it a bit... > snip... > > I understand Greg's comments to be about Debian's commitment to > enforcing a packaging policy, i.e. a policy on where and how things > are installed. To me is quite a different thing than a social > policy. In Debian, if the install scripts of a package to not put > things where the policy says they should be _that_ is a bug in the > package. It may also be considered a bug in some other distro.s. I've > not kept track of this sort of policy issue in any other distro. since > I discovered Debian. > > The Social Policy is also good. But I think it is easy to feel good > about a Social Policy, and it is hard work to implement a packaging > policy. I think that the packaging policy is what really sets debian apart. THat's why everything "just works"... because dev's can count on things being a certain way and if its not, they can count on it being fixed. A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
