Re: ideas underlying policy
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, when Debian was formed it had only one developer, and no one could contribute packages, since that would have diluted the distributions tight integration. This bazaar thing has evolved. My memory doesn't extend back that far, nor have I found any documentation on that period. I presume you're talking about Ian Murdock's original plans, in some sense. Can you elaborate a bit on what those original plans were, and why they changed to the present (GNU style) form? If you find yourself having to do something which seems to conflict with policy -- where it seems like you should do things differently, Please take a moment and reflect on the issue. The policy document has not been thrown together trivially, it has been the concerted effort of a number of people, who may well have spent weeks discussion each little point. If after careful review you still think that Policy happens to be flawed in some way, then please Er... is this an alternate phrasing, a comment directed at me, or some combination? include a comment to that effect in your package's change log, and please file a bug report against policy. I like the rationale. I would add: Policy is the distilled wisdome and and experience of a number of people who have worked together to create the policy documents, and is meant to be something that one may depend on to have been thought through, for the most part (since the people who created this are only human, policy is not flawless). Do you mean, add this sentence at this point in the document, or anywhere in the document? (there's another paragraph where it would flow smoother). There are issues for which there are several equally valid technocal solutions, but a coherent distribution has to make a decision between competeing solutions -- conventions (like the location of the http server document root) that help different packages in the distribution cooperate and depend on each other. The policy documents are also a compendia of such conventions critical for a cohesive OS. Again, I'm not quite sure why you're saying this -- is this language you'd like to see in the document? Or is this a concept you'd like to see in the document? Or is this something you'd like to see in some specific paragraph? Please, I can't try to intuit too much here. I need to be able to distinguish between misunderstandings, stream of conciousness, deep thoughts, and random comments. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The early days of Debian (was Re: ideas underlying policy)
On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 12:10:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Actually, when Debian was formed it had only one developer, and no one could contribute packages, since that would have diluted the distributions tight integration. This bazaar thing has evolved. I remember Debian 0.04. Basically, it was what we'd nowadays term base + bootfloppies - an minimalistic base system on which to build the distribution. Even then, mailing lists were central to development, and development was a group effort. On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 08:41:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: My memory doesn't extend back that far, nor have I found any documentation on that period. I don't think there is much documentation of that period; the Debian mailing list was actually a Debian channel on the Linux Activists server run by arl. It wasn't officially archived. I presume you're talking about Ian Murdock's original plans, in some sense. Can you elaborate a bit on what those original plans were, and why they changed to the present (GNU style) form? The original plans are laid down in the Debian Manifesto (doc-debian: /usr/doc/debian/debian-manifesto). Ray -- Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ideas underlying policy
This is a draft. I've written a document which touches on what I feel are important meta-policy issues. It's a little bit of history, a little bit of speculation, and a bit of an essay on how I think of debian. I'm sure other people have different ideas. I hope none of what I've written makes anyone angry or annoyed. If you feel you could write this better, you're probably right. Please do so. If you think I've misstated some point, please respond to this message with a reasonably lucid explanation. While I think it is good as far as it goes, I think it is missing something crutial. There is in my opinion a difference between goals (such as Debian should be a complete distribution) and a standard to implement that goal (such as No package in main can depend upon a package outside of main, or Packages MUST NOT depend on packages with a lower priority (base, standard, optional, extra) than themselves). Reading your draft, I see discussion of the importance of the goals, but not the importance of the standards -- or at least, not in as many words. You mention guidelines instead of standards. To me, there is a major connotative difference between those two words. To me, standards are not to be broken. They are, in a way, a promise between developers, and developers and the user, that the goals will be met. Guidelines seem much less enforced. Advisary rather than promisary. In addition, standards are the traditional way for disparate groups to work together -- I know that the standard 2x4 I buy at any American lumberyard will be the same size (1.5x.75), etc. -- Raul What is Debian's Policy, and Why Should I Care? Long before Debian was formed, there were a variety of Linux distributions. The people putting together those distributions did a pretty good job, but they were all put together by an individual or a small group, which was frustrating for people who wanted to improve the distribution. Debian was formed to take advantage of the strengths of the Linux community, and put together an open distribution. Where, at least in principal, anyone could chip in and make things better. So, we came up with an idea of a distribution that was designed to allow people to contribute: one where you could upgrade the system smoothly, without having to reinstall everything, one where many people would work together to make the distribution. For this to work, we need to focus on freely distributable software (thus the Debian Free Software Guidelines). More than that, we've formulated policy: a set of guidelines that lets packages put together by people who have never even met work smoothly in a variety of environments and configurations. I would state a set of standards that Or even better, a set of goals and standards that This policy reflects a lot of work by the authors of the document, and others. The policy is a rough outline of how Debian is supposed to work, as a system. Ideally, we would like people to be able to use their experiences on other (similar) systems, without having to do a lot of study. Ideally, we would like packages from several years ago work smoothly in a system together with packages we're writing now, and packages which will be written several years from now. In practice, it's not always so simple. Where we have to make compromises, we tend to favor widely adopted standards, and we try to err on the side of system stability. Keeping an eye on the future, we probably ought to err on the side of simplicity. Debian's Policy Manual is a work in progress, describing where we think we are, and where we think we want to be. It's important to read through the manual, if you're putting together a software package. Even if you're not putting together a package, understanding the manual will clear up a lot of little questions you might have about how things are laid out, and why. Debian's distribution itself is a work in progress. At the time of this writing, we have a lot to do before system administration really makes sense. Ideally, a person should only have to enter relevant information once (and when the configuration needs to be changed). Ideally, a person shouldn't have to study a lot of documentation for a long time before they go about changing something which they have a basic understanding of. In practice, we sometimes ask the same questions multiple times (when upgrading packages, or when putting the same configuration on many systems), and we sometimes don't meet our goal of having packages just work without requiring any configuration. Ideally, there should be a simple way to tell someone how to find documentation on an issue they're interested in. In practice, we're still working on that... One advantage of following standards is that we can take advantage of existing documentation. Furthermore, there's a world outside of Debian, and a lot of
Re: ideas underlying policy
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reading your draft, I see discussion of the importance of the goals, but not the importance of the standards -- or at least, not in as many words. Fair enough. Do you think the small change you recommended satisfy this need? Or are you asking for some exposition on this subject? You had suggested: I would state a set of standards that Or even better, a set of goals and standards that -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The early days of Debian (was Re: ideas underlying policy)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I remember Debian 0.04. Basically, it was what we'd nowadays term base + bootfloppies - an minimalistic base system on which to build the distribution. Even then, mailing lists were central to development, and development was a group effort. That was my impression, which is why I wrote it the way I did. I'd like something a bit more definitive than this, so I can avoid the use of hedge-words. [I'll probably make some changes after reading the manifesto. Thanks for the URL.] Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The early days of Debian (was Re: ideas underlying policy)
You may find the first section of the Introduction to The Debian Linux User's Guide (found at www.linuxpress.com) of some interest. It is titled History, and was, for the most part, written by Ian Murdoch, so you can trust its accuracy. ;-) Luck, On Tue, 5 May 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 12:10:54AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Actually, when Debian was formed it had only one developer, and no one could contribute packages, since that would have diluted the distributions tight integration. This bazaar thing has evolved. I remember Debian 0.04. Basically, it was what we'd nowadays term base + bootfloppies - an minimalistic base system on which to build the distribution. Even then, mailing lists were central to development, and development was a group effort. On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 08:41:03AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: My memory doesn't extend back that far, nor have I found any documentation on that period. I don't think there is much documentation of that period; the Debian mailing list was actually a Debian channel on the Linux Activists server run by arl. It wasn't officially archived. I presume you're talking about Ian Murdock's original plans, in some sense. Can you elaborate a bit on what those original plans were, and why they changed to the present (GNU style) form? The original plans are laid down in the Debian Manifesto (doc-debian: /usr/doc/debian/debian-manifesto). Ray -- Tevens ben ik van mening dat Nederland overdekt dient te worden. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of The Debian Linux User's Guide _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
