On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 12:05 +0200, Philip Hands wrote: > > For anyone with an opinion, I'd suggest that you should try to make > sure > that DEP-14 reflects your opinion, and then work on getting people to > adopt the use of DEP-14 and/or get DEP-14 accepted. >
To be honest: in my opinion the whole DEP process is flawed. I doubt that even the first DEP that created DEPs was had enough consent to be accepted in general. It did just not bother enough people to be against it and it made some others happy, so it was accepted to exist. With the future more and more being container and cloud driven, I would indeed rather see a Debian that is completely maintained in one location, with as much CI and testing as possible. Keeping everything reproducible and maybe - in the future - having a rolling release, which requires these things. Even if that means that we loose packages and developers. Which would be sad, but I think healthy for a long term future of Debian. I would rather see a small but very stable base distribution, with the option to add features on top. Which do not necessarily need to be maintained at the same place as Debian, but could use Debian's infrastructure as its done now. Each "feature" could have its own release cycle as it fits. Sury's PHP packaging would be a prime example for that. We run thousands of PHP driven websites and rarely anyone wants to use what Debian ships as stable (or even from a still supported oldstable). The radical way would be to GR this into place with a *long* grace period. Risky, but better than having a big slow distribution nobody needs anymore at some point. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
