On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 03:24:54PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

[cut]

>
> so i just wanted to put that thought into people's minds to consider,
> as i see quite a lot of potential "scope creep" in the past two weekly
> summary debates that (fortunately!) has been sensibly debated and put
> to bed, but it would be nice to have a debate about whether there
> should be a clear unequivocable statement - directly and clearly
> placed on the web site - about if devuan should be an *indefinite*
> fork or whether it is planned (right from the start) to be *solely* a
> temporary one.
>

Just my usual 0.02 on this: Devuan was born from the necessity to
remove the systemd nonsense from Debian, and I think this initial goal
should be its main mission. Having said that, and besides the fact
that I don't understand what you mean by a "temporary fork" (a fork is
a fork, it happens at a point in time and unless you can travel back
in the past, a fork has to be *permanent* by definition), nobody can
decide now whether in the long run Devuan will drift apart from Debian
only a bit or substantually.

I am firmly convinced that the easiest thing for the moment is to use
Debian as upstream, until possible, and recycle most of the work done
in Debian and for Debian. If Debian will stay with systemd forever,
and will keep adding dependencies on systemd and other nonsense, then
a time might come in which it would be easier to repackage directly
from upstream...

I suppose that nobody can decide on this matter right now. And to be
honest I personally don't care about using Devuan packages on
Debian. There will be no need to do that from the moment we will
switch to Devuan ;)

HND

KatolaZ

--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]