On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:19:50AM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> The only feasible way I can see to make anything similar to what you
> seem to have in mind is by using BSD-like ports for non-core
> components. It is impossible for the "ancillary" stuff (whatever it
> means) to remain in sync with the "core" distribution (whatever it
> means) if their development follows two different time scales. The
> hard part of putting together a distribution is not just making the
> default installation work, but having everything around it working
> fine, with a consistent set of components, libraries and
> dependencies. If all the pieces are not synchronised, you will break
> apart your toy pretty soon.

I seem to have sparked a lively discussion here, which is good. A
couple of ideas thrown around in this thread that I'd like to comment
on. First, I agree that the goals for devuan 1.0 are set in
stone. Let's get out a devuan 1.0 as close as possible to debian 8 without systemd
to start with, and we can then start to decide how to proceed after
that's done. Perhaps I should have waited to bring this up once devuan
1.0 came out. Second, I have to agree with KatolaZ on the above. As
nice as the idea to unify unix and linux sounds, I think it's only a
matter of time before that can turn into a mess, a broken toy as
KatolaZ puts it.

The other suggestion I've seen mentioned is to have a core set of
packages, and provide a framework for the user to build the rest. This
approach is why I left slackware for debian (that, and a lack of a
package manager as good as what debian has). Initially I liked to see
how things work under the hood. However, after a while I got to the
point where I just wanted to install a precompiled package, and get to
work. So, I personally don't support the framework approach.

Also, the concern was raised that people using LTS would expect newer
versions of software while still using LTS. I can't speak for others,
but I would personally have no such expectation. If I decide to use an
LTS release, I would do so with the expectation that aside from
security updates, I would get only whatever was part of that release
while it was stable. If I want a newer version of something, then it's
time for me to leave that LTS release, and move to the current stable
version, or just do without the newer software.

The other idea that was raised here so far is something which sounds
like rolling releases. I think I prefer what debian has now
(I.E. freeze unstable at a certain point in time, and that would
pretty much be the next stable). Just my $0.01 worth on all this.

Greg


--
web site: http://www.gregn.net
gpg public key: http://www.gregn.net/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)
If we haven't been in touch before, e-mail me before adding me to your contacts.

--
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@???