>>>> 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

Please, be careful, I'm not saying that distros should disappear to create a single operating system, or anything like that. I am talking about the format in which developers publicly offer for download the code for new versions of the software they create. I do not see how standardizing the format of the "licenses" file or standardising the name of the folders within the source file could imply a security problem or cause the distros to disappear. I think that just the other way around, this would make packaging easier for distros, freeing up time that can be spent on other things. Regarding security, the vulnerable software is the installed and executable software, not the source file.

Best regards.