KatolaZ <kato...@freaknet.org> wrote: >Sure, but you would agree that rebuilding an increasing number of >infected packages in Devuan from upstream would mean a great deal of >unnecessary work...
It may be unnecessary, that's why I see a couple of ways to solve it: 1) Contacting maintainers directly. This can be unfortunate considering responses from the community but at the end of the day I hope that there are some fellows that are more open to this. 2) If #1 fails, cutting Devuan to stable only, which means much less work, but also admittedly means lowering the potential user base. Many desktop users like myself prefer newer packages and sometimes it is crucial to be cutting edge. For example, if one needs latest GTK but there is only a version that is two versions behind. 3) And probably the least possible variant, rebuilding everything to newer packages and creating the new ecosystem. Thus versions of packages will be similar to Stretch/Sid but without endless revisions, without rolling release model, only kind of bug fixes, crucial bugs I mean. I reckon it would be better to create packages from upstream. The advantage is Devuan will not depend on Debian and their TC and package maintainers. Devuan will only use dpkg as the base but it means much more work though potentially expands that user base I mentioned. Trying to maintain newer package versions means more regular releases, like, let's say, once in two years. In this case I think we'll have compatibility with Testing/Unstable. Sure, these points only if systemd cluttering will reach extraordinary levels. My two pennies worth, Mitt _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
