I have to admit apt and dpkg made me lazy.
And systemd0 got in sneakily while performing a dist-upgrade...what a fuckup that was :- (

Though I'm currently trying Slackware, slackpkg and slackbuilds. It is not bad at all.

Perhaps just provide a package system that provides signed updated packages, security updates and have a separate site for devbuilds repository?



On 12 December 2014 12:39:51 PM ACST, t.j.duchene@??? wrote:
>
>>The FSF view is that Debian supports non-free because non-free is
>>hosted on the same servers as main. In the FSF view non-free appears
>>the same as experiment and backports do. See their official statement
>>here. This has also been discussed many times on different lists.
>
>Please understand that while I hold the ideals of the FSF in good
>regard, their endorsement means very little in the practical sense of
>real life. Take something like Fedora, which refuses to package
>non-free code. It is relatively useful, until you need flash support,
>non-free firmware for video and wireless hardware, or video and audio
>codecs. Simple fact is that if you do things the FSF way, you end up
>with a crippled system with limited usability.
>
>Fedora attempted to solve this with third party repositories, but in my
>experience third party repositories have QA issues. I’ve seen Fedora’s
>Livna and Suse’s PACMAN repositories have really awful package
>consistency problems from time to time.
>
>If I might venture an observation, Devuan’s time would be best focused
>on building a core with as few usability issues as possible. This
>would mean having the proper kernel firmware. The rest of the Debian
>repository can wait until that core is established.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dng mailing list
>Dng@???
>https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

--