[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: Dropping Debian support (Was: LinuxTag impressions)
From: Richard Moore <rich () ipso-facto ! freeserve ! co ! uk>
Date: 2000-07-09 23:23:36
[Download RAW message or body]
mosfet wrote:
>
> Richard Moore wrote:
> >
> > mosfet wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Moore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mosfet wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard Moore wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mosfet wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David Faure wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 03:56:51PM -0700, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2000, Matthias Ettrich wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > But what were the reactions of the Debian hobby lawyers? Instead of taking
> > > > > > > > > > the ball and contributing to an open and fruitful discussion, they changed
> > > > > > > > > > strategy. Trolltech and Qt no longer is a problem, but KDE, because it's
> > > > > > > > > > KDE that writes the free code. That clearly indicates (at least for me)
> > > > > > > > > > that their main interest is to disturb free software development under the
> > > > > > > > > > KDE banner rather than trying to find a solution for them to ship it
> > > > > > > > > > without losing their face.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Matthias
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why do we still have seperate "debian" directories all over KDE? We don't
> > > > > > > > > have "RedHat" or "SuSE" directories. I propose we drop this. I see no reason
> > > > > > > > > why we should give debian a preferred treatment over other distro's.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hmm, we have spec files, for building RPMs of KDE for many distros...
> > > > > > > > It definitely helps, to have the tools for building binary packages as part
> > > > > > > > of CVS.... but I understand your anger against those... pseudo-lawyers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm for dropping this support. The other dists officially support us
> > > > > > > thus they get offical support from us. Debian officially does not
> > > > > > > support the KDE project, and thus should get similiar treatment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I understand the temptation, but this seems a little extreme. My
> > > > > > reasoning is that it is rather childish - I also see no reason to
> > > > > > make the people who are building KDE Deb packages have any more
> > > > > > hassle than they have already got. I don't care if Debian include
> > > > > > KDE or not, but I do think we should avoid stopping those who want
> > > > > > to correct Debian's pig-headedness by doing it themselves from
> > > > > > getting on with it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If Debian's position is that KDE is bad, and they continue to spread FUD
> > > > > about the project in the media, why should we make special provisions
> > > > > for them to use our software?
> > > >
> > > > As I said I don't care about Debian. I do however care that there
> > > > a bunch of kde users who have spent the time to make sure that people
> > > > who run Debian can use KDE, and install it easily. I agree we should
> > > > make no special provisions, which is why I asked if anyone can explain
> > > > the need for its own directory rather than simply some sort of spec
> > > > file as used by the other distros.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Most linux distributors view KDE as an essential component to selling
> > > > > Linux CD's. Users demand it. One way KDE can fight back is by simply not
> > > > > assiting Debian in making use of our software which they officially
> > > > > degrade.
> > > >
> > > > But Debian doesn't use these files AFAIK. KDE users using Debian or
> > > > building packages for Debian use them. Why should those users be
> > > > penalised because their distro is lame?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, *we* the free software developers are being penalized because
> > > their distro is lame! If we drop support perhaps the users (or the loss
> > > of them) will help Debian act in a more reasonable manner.
> >
> > If that was true, I would be very happy. I suspect we would still
> > not get Debian to be reasonable if we walked around wearing sackcloth
> > and ashes!
> >
> > I agree it would be nice to move these directories, but I think that
> > keeping the Debian support will do us a lot of good. For one thing I
> > expect that almost every Debian reseller will include KDE, so it
> > really doesn't matter a damn what the Debian bosses think. If we can
> > move them then great, but I don't think we should arbrarily remove
> > them. That would exactly what the idiots at Debian would do in this
> > circumstance.
> >
>
> It's certainly not an arbitrary position.
>
> Right now Debian is getting what amounts to the best of both worlds.
> They can continue to both bash KDE publically and refuse to officially
> support it while keeping the considerable amount of KDE users by
> pointing them to unoffical packages. While we cannot stop this behavior,
> we certainly should not be assiting it.
I agree
>
> There is no legal basis for Debian to exclude literally hundreds of KDE
> applications (not just libs!). I'm not going to reiterate what I have
> said before - if your interested in the topic look at last months posts
> in my name on kde-license on the mailing list archives.
I basically agree with this too.
>
> I've even offered to go over each application with them in order to
> assure there is no conflict. I've thus far gotten no official response.
That's a very good offer. I guess they are simply unwilling to have
anyone prove them wrong.
>
> This being the case, if Debian is not willing to officially support KDE
> packages we should not be assiting the development of unoffical packages
> and helping them keep the KDE user base (a huge number of Debian
> users!). This is bad business. If they are willing to offically support
> our apps (not just libs) then fine. I would be okay if they would just
> stop posting vague and incorrect legal FUD. Since that's not the case
> it's foolish for us to be giving them free help in the form of packaging
> data.
If we were a business I would agree, but we are not. What do we care
what Debian think? They could make a distibution that only included
apps beginning with the letter 'd' for all I care. I just don't want
our users to suffer.
Rich.
>
> > Rich.
> >
> > >
> > > > Rich.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Asking why Debian needs separate directories like this is reasonable
> > > > > > however, can anyone explain?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rich.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
> > > > > > > > http://home.clara.net/faure/, http://www.konqueror.org/
> > > > > > > > KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today
> > > > > > > > See http://www.kde.org/kde1-and-kde2.html for how to set up KDE 2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Moore rich@ipso-facto.freeserve.co.uk
> > > > > > http://www.robocast.com/ richard@robocast.com
> > > > > > http://developer.kde.org/ rich@kde.org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Moore rich@ipso-facto.freeserve.co.uk
> > > > http://www.robocast.com/ richard@robocast.com
> > > > http://developer.kde.org/ rich@kde.org
> >
> > --
> > Richard Moore rich@ipso-facto.freeserve.co.uk
> > http://www.robocast.com/ richard@robocast.com
> > http://developer.kde.org/ rich@kde.org
--
Richard Moore rich@ipso-facto.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.robocast.com/ richard@robocast.com
http://developer.kde.org/ rich@kde.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic