4 ms·
The article seems to believe that Debian packaging practices can be used to illustrate how the users responded to a project's actions. I find that funny, but it
by maxlybbert 10y ago
The article seems to believe that Debian packaging practices can be used to illustrate how the users responded to a project's actions. I find that funny, but it makes it hard to accept the article's conclusions.
(I'm not saying anything about Debian, really; I would have the same complaint if the article pointed to Fedora, Slackware, Ubuntu, etc. as proof about whether a change confused users).
- lnussbaum 10y ago(I'm the author) Well my main free software affiliation is with Debian -- that's why I used it to illustrate. Still, I think it's relevant. One of the difficult choices that distributions have to make, is to decide which branch of projects should be shipped to users (of if multiple branches need to be shipped, which one should be the default). Of course Debian is often on the conservative side of things, and also made those decisions based on its own ability to introduce patches to fix breakages. It would be more interesting to have data about which python version is supported by how many modules, over time (and which ruby version is supported by how many ruby gems, over time). But I don't think that this data is available?