On 17.07.2015 11:25, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:50 AM James Powell <james4591@???
> <mailto:james4591@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> There is one thing I would recommend different that the standard
> Debian model. Release only the right amount of packages to create a
> working operating system under a complete installation, and dedicate
> the rest of all packages to Debian friendly build scripts for
> packages of the non-sequitur ranks to keep anything and everything
> optional, as that, optional.
>
> This might help other non-Linux distributions like kfreebsd and
> killumos (Dyson) formulate strategies for packages.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
I vote for staying as near as possible to debian. Keep it simple. Keep
the workload as low as possible. Let's quote Lennart Poettering:
"Systemd is open source, so if you don't like it, you can fork it!"
Just change Systemd to Devuan and you have what i want to say. Please
consider this worth thinking about... Maybe we should first have at
least one stable devuan release and then talk about minor changes...
>
>
> This is a model that I've had thoughts about for a while, originally
> spurred on by the old Fedora Core/Extras division and refined by
> Ubuntu's PPA model - although for different reasons entirely.
>
> What'd I'd be interested in seeing is this:
>
> - A "core distribution" consisting of the kernel, base system,
> openssh(d) and enough of the development toolchain to build packages -
> and nothing else - basically a stable set of core libraries, ABI, and
> userland utilities that could go untouched for a long period of time.
>
> - A modular system of self-contained repositories with their own much
> faster lifecycles for everything else, with an emphasis on encouraging
> upstream vendors to provide their own repositories.
>
> The advantages:
> - a leaner "core distribution" would be maintainable for a longer
> period of time
> - modular repositories for everything else would keep it from being
> stale - a different kind of balance between long term stability and
> rolling releases.
> - any LTS for each of the modular components could align strictly with
> the upstream maintainer's LTS strategy, rather than the distribution's
> release schedule, so the distribution would bear much less burden for
> supporting these packages and the "blame your distribution" game would
> be lessened.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
::
Re: [DNG] devuan LTS
