Comments on: linux.conf.au 2010: Day 1 (afternoon) http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/01/18/linux-conf-au-2010-day-1-afternoon/ a potpourri of mirth and madness Mon, 23 Jan 2012 03:06:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Matt Zimmerman http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/01/18/linux-conf-au-2010-day-1-afternoon/#comment-2577 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:29:34 +0000 http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=865#comment-2577 It’s mostly a matter of control and independence. Debian (quite understandably) doesn’t want to be dependent on a third-party service in order to run the project. These represent fundamental values in the Debian project.

]]> By: Matt Zimmerman http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/01/18/linux-conf-au-2010-day-1-afternoon/#comment-2576 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:26:27 +0000 http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=865#comment-2576 I’ve made a note to do a blog post to go into detail on this, but it’s along similar lines to what you’re saying. In particular, I think that applications have different enough requirements compared to system-level components that there may be value in treating them differently (different packaging, different processes, different user experience)

]]> By: Jonathan Carter http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/01/18/linux-conf-au-2010-day-1-afternoon/#comment-2571 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:42:51 +0000 http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=865#comment-2571 I think it would be great if Debian used Launchpad, even if it was their own instance. Any particular reason they’re specifically against using Canonical’s instance? My guess is they probably wouldn’t be able to get access to certain stuff on the server they may need to integrate with other Debian services?

]]> By: Jo Shields http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/01/18/linux-conf-au-2010-day-1-afternoon/#comment-2570 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:20:34 +0000 http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=865#comment-2570 Oh, and yes, PLEASE, PPA’s for Debian. It’s been a wishlist item of mine for years, and is badly needed for collaborative development of stuff. Right now, the only platform that supports it is the openSUSE Build System, and their workflow is shitty from a Debian perspective (it’s really built for a single .spec file, not a debian/ folder)

]]> By: Jo Shields http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/01/18/linux-conf-au-2010-day-1-afternoon/#comment-2569 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:19:06 +0000 http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=865#comment-2569 I think people probably feel safer running Testing than Ubuntu+1 for the same reason they feel safer running Testing than Unstable. I know at least once per cycle I’m left staring at a black screen after a routine update to my +1 system, with the risk reducing as release approaches.

]]> By: Ram http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2010/01/18/linux-conf-au-2010-day-1-afternoon/#comment-2567 Mon, 18 Jan 2010 07:20:13 +0000 http://mdzlog.alcor.net/?p=865#comment-2567 Re: “we may need to move beyond a “one size fits all” or “everything is a package” approach to package management. ”

I don’t know the tech details… but I think you are on to something. Why should “One size fit all” at the first place? We have different security concerns (Kernel vs HTML or java applets)… different update frequency (continues updates @ HTML level to almost rock solid @ Kernel level) and different skill level and languages.

Yes, through complicated technologies we can get a single system to address all… but do we really gain that much? And is it really one system or one complicated umbrella covering different solutions?

]]>