I don't know if anybody has already said this, but I think we should just
have our own repository for debian.  It seems much simpler than all this
mess.  mabye have on for Fedora also?

On 5/23/08, Ross Boylan <RossBoylan at stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>
> I think a fruitful way to continue the discussion with Debian would be
> to try to take a step up from the mechanical issues raised in Thomas's
> original message to try to discover what the substantive concerns behind
> them are--e.g., licensing, the right to inspect and modify software,
> etc.  It seems to me he has translated those into the modes that are
> typical for source/binary software, and it would better to get the
> substantive requirements from Debian and then for us to think about how
> those can be met in the context of squeak (and persuade Debian that way
> is appropriate).
>
> The rest of this message is a response to the dialogue below, which is
> arguably wandering off topic to the nature of Debian.  However, just as
> Debian needs to understand a bit about squeak to make the integration
> work, squeak needs to understand a bit about Debian.  It seems to me
> that Norbert's characterization of Debian, or at least some possible
> readings of it, are a bit misleading.
>
>
> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 11:39 +0200, Norbert Hartl wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 11:03 -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 14:42 +0200, Norbert Hartl wrote:
> > > > Even if squeak could cope well with all sorts of dependency and
> > > > conflicts management it wouldn't change much. Debian is an operating
> > > > system and they are looking for an operating-system-way to do all
> > > > these things.
>
> I'm not sure what you meant by "looking at things in an operating
> system way," but most of the effort in Debian goes into packaging
> applications.  They definitely want it so that if you pull in package x
> you will get all the other packages, at the appropriate version levels,
> that x requires to function.
>
>
> > > Debian is a distribution that includes operating systems (primarily
> > > Linux, but at various times BSD and Hurd) and a lot of other software.
> > >
> > Of course, debian is a distribution system  for software.
>
> "distribution system for software" sounds as if it refers to the
> servers you can pull packages from, whereas "distribution," which is the
> more typical phrasing I've seen, implies an integrated and manageable
> set of software.  Debian is both.
>
>
> >  But for me it
> > is an operating system, too. The name is DebianLinux
>
> I don't think I've seen Debian ever referred to as DebianLinux in
> Debian.  Debian has made a big deal about its main distribution being
> "Debian Gnu/Linux", where the GNU is an explicit reference to the fact
> that there's a lot of other software on top of Linux, and that there is
> or could be GNU/Hurd, GNU/BSD, etc.  Of course, not all the software is
> GNU software, but please let's not go there.
>
>
> >  but you can savely
> > omit the Linux and everybody knows what you mean :)
>
>
> www.debian.org provides more.  At the top:
> What is Debian?
> Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating
> system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your
> computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating
> system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence
> the name GNU/Linux.
>
> Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733
> packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy
> installation on your machine.
>
> [Ross: so the first paragraph says Debian *is* an OS, while the second
> says Debian *includes* an OS.  Go figure.]
>
>
> >
> > To be correct (I think you wanted to be) none of your examples is an
> > operating system. Linux and Hurd are kernels and BSD is an operating
> > system family.
> >
> > Norbert
>
>
> True.  I think the GNU/BSD was to be using just the kernel of BSD, but I
> could be wrong.  At any rate, I think that particular project was
> abandonned.
>
> Your definition of an operating system may be "bigger" than mine; I'd
> include some core but non-kernel software in it, but not most of what
> are considered applications.
>
>
> Ross
>
>
>


-- 
David Zmick
/dz0004455\
http://dz0004455.googlepages.com
http://dz0004455.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080526/409dbe7e/attachment.htm