Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am not even trying to comprehend where these rules come from, or > what their sanity is. I am just going to accept whatever comes out of > the Debian cabal as long as I can morally accept it.
See debian-devel. > Does this mean eternally, or only for one week? Who is going to > verify this? Verification isn't the point; if people can't be trusted not to lie, then everything is broken already. But what it means actually, is uncertain. I think it's a practical criterion, not a strict one. > > 4. the port must include basic unix functionality, e.g resolving > > DNS names and firewalling > > The firewalling requirement was specifically put in there for us, I > suppose. AJ was quite upset when I told him we don't have it (years > ago). The people asking for this seem to think that having a working > firewall is some kind of proof of something, I don't know what. So, I've asked "what features are implied here", and we can simply add that feature. > > 5. binary packages must be built from the unmodified Debian source > > (required, among other reasons, for license compliance) > > That was always a requirement. We've done it, but it's actually a change; there used to be procedures for porters to have private source for things. > But even then I suggest to just reject this rule. The software in > Debian is heavily biased towards GNU/Linux. Most packages are not. Most packages are just ordinary libraries, gnome apps, etc. It also merely requires that it build, *not* that it fully function. Let's not poke at that one, and just use it in our advantage. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
