Re: DWN 2000-12-12

[Yuhji KOYAMA <koyama@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

$B>.;3$G$9!#(B

Seiji Kaneko <skaneko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> $B$+$M$3$G$9!#$*Hh$l$5$^$G$9!#(B

$B$$$(!"$3$A$i$3$=!#(B

.|were handled. It's hard to tell if a rpm-based system, even using apt, can
.|be as cleanly upgradable as a Debian system, but we'll probably find out
.|soon. Debian is losing the edge of being the only distribution with an
.|Advanced Package Tool, on the other hand, we are set to gain some new
.|security features, including mirror authentication, and package
.|authentication, which Connectiva has added to apt, and another apt frontend
.|which they are writing. One very interesting quote from the article:
.|"<i>After full integration of the RPM patches into APT, it will have the
.|potential to become the standard package management frontend for
.|Linux</i>"
.|</p>

> > rpm $B%Y!<%9$N%7%9%F%`$,!"(Bapt $B$r;H$C$F$5$(!"(B
> > Debian $B%7%9%F%`$N$h$&$K<j:]$h$/%"%C%W%0%l!<%I$G$-$k$N$+$I$&$+(B
> > $BJ,$+$jFq$$$G$9$,!";d$?$A$O$?$V$s$9$0$KCN$k$3$H$K$J$k$G$7$g$&!#(B
> 
> $B!VJ,$+$jFq$$!W$H$$$&$h$j$O!V$O$C$-$j$7$J$$!W0L$G$7$g$&$+!#(B

$B$=$&$G$9$M!#(B

.|learning. So it's not surprising that along with the regular grumbling about
.|the complexity of the new maintainer process, there is plenty of sentiment
.|among long-term developers that the title "Debian Developer" should be
.|reserved for members of an elite group who are "<i>committed, reliable, in
.|agreement with Debian's philosophy, and in it for the long haul</i>". That
.|last quote is from last week's Linux Weekly News, which included an
.|<a href="http://www.lwn.net/2000/1207/dists.php3";>excellent summary</a> of
.|recent discussions concerning this topic.
.|</p>

> > $B!V(B<i>$B8%?HE*$G!"?.Mj$G$-$F!"(BDebian $B$NE/3X$K=>$$!"(B
> > Debian $B$r6/$/0z$C$Q$k(B</i>$B!W(B
> 
> $B!V8%?H!W$H$$$&$h$j!V@UG$$r;}$C$F;22h$9$k!W$N0U$G$9!#E,Ev$JLu8l(B
> $B$,$A$g$C$H;W$$$D$+$J$$!#(B

$B!V@UG$46$,$"$k!W$/$i$$$G$7$g$&$+!#(B
$B!V79E]$9$k!W$H$$$&0UL#$b$"$k$h$&$G$9$,!"$A$g$C$H0c$$$^$9$+$M!#(B

> "for the long haul" $B$G!VD94|$K$o$?$C$F!W$N0U$N@.8l$G$9!#(B

$B$J$k$[$I!#N;2r$7$^$7$?!#(B

.|<p>
.|<b>Cleaning up woody's task packages</b> was the subject of a 
.|<a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy-0012/msg00123.html";>long
.|discussion</a>. While potato only shipped with a few screenfuls of task 
.|packages, the number of task packages in woody has exploded, and many of 
.|them are of doubtful utility to a new user who is installing Debian and wants
.|to use it for a specific task. Task packages arn't scaling as well as we had 
.|hoped, and there is a fair bit of confusion among the developers about what
.|exactly task packages should be used for. One solution involves putting 
.|a definition of what constitutes a valid task package into policy. Or we might
.|have to do away with the task system altogether and come up with some
.|<a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-0012/msg00927.html";>alternate
.|method</a> that is more flexible and less prone to abuse.
.|</p>

> > <p>
> > <b>woody $B$N(B task $B%Q%C%1!<%8$N@0M}(B</b>$B$O(B
> > <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy-0012/msg00123.html";>
> > $BD9$$5DO@(B</a>$B$N<gBj$G$7$?!#(B
> > potato $B$G$OJ,$+$j$d$9$$(B task $B%Q%C%1!<%8$,$$$/$D$+4^$^$l$k$@$1$G$7$?$,!"(B
> 
> "screenful" $B$O$h$/$o$+$i$J$$$1$I!"!VJ,$+$j$d$9$$!W$H$$$&$3$H$G$O(B
> $B$J$$$H$*$b$&!#C1$J$kJ,NL$NLdBj$G$O!#(B

$B8f0U!#4V0c$($^$7$?!#!V(B($B?t(B)$B2hLLJ,$N!W$G$9$M!#(B

> > woody $B$G(B task $B%Q%C%1!<%8$N?t$O7cA}$7$^$7$?!#(B
> > $B$=$7$F!"(BDebian $B$r%$%s%9%H!<%k$7$F(B
> > $BFCDj$N%?%9%/$K;H$$$?$$$H$$$&?7$7$$%f!<%6$K$H$C$F!"(B
> > $B$=$l$i$N$[$H$s$I$OLr$KN)$D$N$+5?$o$7$$$b$N$G$9!#(B
> > task $B%Q%C%1!<%8$O;d$?$A$,K>$`$h$&$J5,LO$K$J$C$F$$$^$;$s!#(B
> 
> $B5,LO$H$$$&$+!"@.D92aDx$r;X$7$F$$$C$F$$$k$h$&$K$b;W$$$^$9!#(B

$B;H$$J}$,E}0l$5$l$F$J$$$H$$$&$3$H$G!V6&DL$N<\EY!W$H$$$&46$8$b$7$^$9!#(B

-- 
$B>.;3M4;J(B