Hi, Joey.
On Oct 12 2005, Joey Hess wrote:
> Rogério Brito wrote:
> > The Ubuntu people are synchronizing their work with Debian all the
> > time
>
> Ubuntu has a general policy of not sending patches back to Debian
> developers.
I didn't know that.
> They make their patches available on a web
Rogério Brito wrote:
> See what has happened with mutt after the muttng fork was created. See
> the same thing with Debian adopting more and more the team
> maintainership of packages after Ubuntu.
I think that any implication that Ubuntu somehow led Debian toward more
team maintenance of packages
Rogério Brito wrote:
> The Ubuntu people are synchronizing their work with Debian all the time
Ubuntu has a general policy of not sending patches back to Debian
developers. They make their patches available on a website in lumps[1]
of varying utility and expect Debian to go look at them and integr
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, [iso-8859-1] Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Oct 12 2005, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, kangja wrote:
> > > i don't understand all these variants. why not just continue with debian
> > > alone?
> >
> > because:
> > e) they don't know how to provide patches/enhancement
On Oct 12 2005, Carl Fink wrote:
> One of the beauties of Free software is that one group can take the
> software base, fork off their own project, and do it their way.
And, then, merge back the good things to the original project, if that
proves to be useful.
See what has happened with mutt afte
On Oct 12 2005, Alvin Oga wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, kangja wrote:
> > i don't understand all these variants. why not just continue with debian
> > alone?
>
> because:
> e) they don't know how to provide patches/enhancements/new-packages into
>the main debian core
Please, don't spread FUD
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 06:03:51PM +0800, kangja wrote:
> i don't understand all these variants. why not just continue with debian
> alone? if you find some way to improve on debian, why use it to produce
> another branch? E.g. the bootable cd of Knoppix, why not just have a
> bootable cd for debia
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jon Dowland wrote:
> Afaik knoppix is the first bootable CD distribution.
slackware was always a standalone live distro from its beginnings
i don't know if there was other standalone cd before knippix
based on debian
c ya
alvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, kangja wrote:
> i don't understand all these variants. why not just continue with debian
> alone?
because:
a) they can
b) they want to have their own label (they can sell it in various forms)
c) they want to improve it in ways they want
d) tney can sell it
e) they don't kn
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 06:03:51PM +0800, kangja wrote:
> i don't understand all these variants. why not just continue with
> debian alone? if you find some way to improve on debian, why use it to
> produce another branch? E.g. the bootable cd of Knoppix, why not just
> have a bootable cd for debia
i don't understand all these variants. why not just continue with debian
alone? if you find some way to improve on debian, why use it to produce
another branch? E.g. the bootable cd of Knoppix, why not just have a
bootable cd for debian?
kangja
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
11 matches
Mail list logo
