Assesment [LWN.net]

Assesment

Posted Aug 7, 2009 18:33 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
In reply to: Assesment by daniels
Parent article: Shuttleworth: On cadence and collaboration

Novell isn't pushing for cross-distro syncing publicly. If they went on record supporting the idea...then yes I would want to know how they viewed the role of their build service in light of any sort of syncing agreement. Because their build service would be just as useful to break the spirit of a 2 year cadence agreement. But thanks for bringing it up. It points to how difficult such a cadence would be to maintain in practise. As Novell derives more revenue from Studio in the future, breaking the spirit of such a syncing agreement with customized Suse remix appliances could essentially nullify some of the stated benefits to upstreams because we'd still see a continuum of versioning in long term deployments. Especially if Novell chooses to support some of those remixes with enterprise level support.

But this isn't Novell's idea...its Shuttleworth's meme. If Canonical doesn't think that PPAs nor OEM repositories that they control would be considered part of the agreement, that should be said as early on as possible to prevent any later re-interpretation.

Let's be clear at the outset as to what the boundaries are for each distributor....no implicit assumptions. It would be far far worse if one of the other distros who decided to work with Shuttleworth on this cried foul about Canonical controlled addon repositories after the agreement was in place.

-jef

to post comments

Assesment

Posted Aug 8, 2009 8:15 UTC (Sat) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link]

If Canonical doesn't think that PPAs nor OEM repositories that they control would be considered part of the agreement, that should be said as early on as possible to prevent any later re-interpretation.

Why would they? He said part of the release. PPAs are not part of releases. No-one has ever even suggested they are, except for you, who apparently considers Rawhide and people.fedoraproject.org to be a part of RHEL.

A release is defined fairly strictly by virtue of what's in the repositories for that release, which is a finite and well-known set of packages. You're the only one on the planet who seems to think that just because something has the same domain name or is funded by the same people, it's also magically part of the release, which is provably false. This argument is getting incredibly dull.