On 17.07.2015 11:25, Stephanie Daugherty wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:50 AM James Powell <james4...@hotmail.com > <mailto:james4...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > There is one thing I would recommend different that the standard > Debian model. Release only the right amount of packages to create a > working operating system under a complete installation, and dedicate > the rest of all packages to Debian friendly build scripts for > packages of the non-sequitur ranks to keep anything and everything > optional, as that, optional. > > This might help other non-Linux distributions like kfreebsd and > killumos (Dyson) formulate strategies for packages. > > Any thoughts on this? >
I vote for staying as near as possible to debian. Keep it simple. Keep the workload as low as possible. Let's quote Lennart Poettering: "Systemd is open source, so if you don't like it, you can fork it!" Just change Systemd to Devuan and you have what i want to say. Please consider this worth thinking about... Maybe we should first have at least one stable devuan release and then talk about minor changes... > > > This is a model that I've had thoughts about for a while, originally > spurred on by the old Fedora Core/Extras division and refined by > Ubuntu's PPA model - although for different reasons entirely. > > What'd I'd be interested in seeing is this: > > - A "core distribution" consisting of the kernel, base system, > openssh(d) and enough of the development toolchain to build packages - > and nothing else - basically a stable set of core libraries, ABI, and > userland utilities that could go untouched for a long period of time. > > - A modular system of self-contained repositories with their own much > faster lifecycles for everything else, with an emphasis on encouraging > upstream vendors to provide their own repositories. > > The advantages: > - a leaner "core distribution" would be maintainable for a longer > period of time > - modular repositories for everything else would keep it from being > stale - a different kind of balance between long term stability and > rolling releases. > - any LTS for each of the modular components could align strictly with > the upstream maintainer's LTS strategy, rather than the distribution's > release schedule, so the distribution would bear much less burden for > supporting these packages and the "blame your distribution" game would > be lessened. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
