I agree with that post!

But this could make it necessary to patch aptitude / apt /dpkg...
If theres no one already on it, i could do that. But of course, we need
to discuss this first.

On 16.12.2014 10:06, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:01:29PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>> If the version numbers are going to be that long, we're going to have
>> to change the layout of the interactive mode of aptitude. Just so we
>> have a chance of seeing them.
>>
>> Another possibility might be to change the package name.
>>
>
> Just my 2 cents regarding package names, extension and builds: I
> believe we should stay with .deb extensions, leave all the package
> names untouched (unless there is something specific to devuan, in
> which case I vote for adding the "-devuan" suffix to the package name)
> and avoid any unnecessary fuss.
>
> Well, I was more inclined to believe that the devuan project was not
> going to repackage everything from scratch, right? That would not be a
> debian fork, but another (distinct) distribution, and I personally
> don't feel the urge for that. I just would like to have a stable, old,
> secure, tested debian without the systemd nonsense, as many of us
> here, so I would go for the minimum required tweaking to get that up
> and running, which at the moment amounts more or less to one pin in
> preferences.d...
>
> On the other hand, all of us know that obtaining something even
> remotely similar to a debian starting from scratch is just an insanely
> hard task, which would require at least half a dozen years of work
> from several dozens motivated people, with scarse probability to
> eventually succeed (sorry for being so harsh and direct with the more
> motivated here, but this is what we have seen happening all the time
> in the last 20 years...).
>
> Let's be honest: maintaining an updated fork of debian without systemd
> will become very soon a tricky task on itself, so we better focus our
> energies on that for the moment :)
>
> My2Cents
>
> KatolaZ
>