Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > On 19/07/26 at 19:57 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> 2. Debusine, and Freexian in general >> ------------------------------------ >> >> While it is laudable that Freexian has the explicit goal of helping >> Debian, Debian giving preferential treatment to one company might >> outweigh the benefits when this drives away other contributors. > > A long time ago, I was the DPL when Debian LTS was set up. > > I was very careful at the time to defend a setup where mutiple actors > could collaborate on Debian LTS. I think that this still holds: if > someone if sufficiently unhappy with Freexian's contributions to LTS, > there's space to setup other actors, with their own funding models.
Would that even be possible if Debian buildds were to use Debusine? Doing so seems like a corporate-takeover of an essential Debian-internal service. I guess the close association between Debian-internal matters (e.g., LTS or buildd) with one external company is what may annoy people. It calls for transparency. Don't get me wrong: in this particular case, I'm for replacing our aging buildd infrastructure with Debusine which is well documented and appears on the surface to be better engineered. I don't have anything per se against corporate takeovers, and find that they often lead to more activity and progress, which is good. But we should be aware of what we are doing. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
