On 2021-05-16 15:35, Alexis PM via Dng wrote:
>>> There is also PcLinuxOS even if rpm based but they have the full
>>> stack
>>> systemd free and could be a source of code for devuan as they already
>>> solved somehow most of the problems. Systemd free distros should
>>> pool their efforts to avoid duplication and to gain critical mass.
>>
>> I'd like to put that onto a broader level: IMHO most of the work to do
>> for distros is about QM (testing, patching, bugfixing) - we should try
>> to consolidate that work, independent of individual distros and their
>> technology.
>>
>> For decades, whenever I package something for some distro, I try to
>> do most of the work in a distro agnostic way. (used to have my own
>> project, called "oss-qm", which collects patches ontop of upstream
>> releases to make up QM'ed branches - unfortunately no distro really
>> showed any interest in that).
>>
>> In essenence, I'm proposing fixing up packages (and individual
>> releases)
>> up to a point where the actual distro-packaging is pretty much
>> trivial.
>> For *most* SW out there we could even invent some universal packaging
>> metadata format, that could be automatically transformed into dist-
>> specific build files. Of course, that only works just *mostly*, since
>> there're still many exceptions. Dh (and its various helpers) is
>> already
>> a great step into that direction, but we could go some steps further
>> and make it useful for completely unrelated distros and even more
>> tricky
>> cases like crosscompiling and tiny embedded scenarios.
>
>
> Standardize the package format of the released versions of each free
> software project would be a total and desirable revolution.
>

Would it? Or would that standardization make Linux vulnerable to
malicious activity and misuse by those who want to control
"free-software" in oh so many ways?

Christopher Barry's "Open letter to the Linux World"[1] concludes with
this:

OneLinux == zero-choice

[1] http://lkml.iu.edu//hypermail/linux/kernel/1408.1/02496.html

golinux