Debian Common Core Alliance
d98mb at dtek.chalmers.se
Thu Jan 5 18:16:50 GMT 2006
>> The reason distros modify the core is because they don't see a reason not
>> to. There now is a reason and a lot of distros have chosen to use a common
>> core and add functionality as modules instead.
> I can't agree with this. Building a distribution is a lot of work, and we
> don't create more work for ourselves without good reason.
I agree it's a lot of work, but what I was trying to say is that some
distributions now have a reason not to modify the core and will base
their future releases on a common core. Things are no longer what they
always have been.
>> Of course it's possible, the DCC model in fact improves the situation for
>> ISVs. If they want to certify to the whole OS, they first certify for DCC
>> and then to the other parts of that OS. When certifying for the next OS,
>> the DCC part is already done. Of course not only certifying gets easier,
>> but also developing and bug fixing.
> It's an interesting idea, but in practice it doesn't meet the needs of
> I'm not aware of any ISVs who are willing to do certifications in this way.
Since Mark Shuttleworth stated it was not possible, I gave a suggestion to
how it could be. I don't know if ISVs are willing to do certifications
but I beleive the DCC atleast doesn't prevent them from doing it the usual
The ISV and IHV members of FSG believes it's a good idea to certify for LSB,
wich the DCC is an implementation of. Admittedly those ISVs are most likely
developers of data bases, servers and virtualization software and the IHVs
developers of drivers, but I beleive that's a pretty good start.
If FSG succeeds with their efforts, ISVs developing GUI based software will
have the option to certify the LSB Desktop if they want to do that.
>> Having a common core, in my opinion, makes it easier to collaborate at
>> the source code level.
> I don't see how; can you explain? I don't think that even the DCCA
> themselves make this claim; their justification for a common binary core is
> based on certification (and I don't have much faith in that approach, as
> outlined above). They don't claim that it aids collaboration.
Luckily I don't need the DCCA to have opinions, so here it goes:
The DCC based distros will be binary compatible with Debian.
Those distros can then share for instance security patches for the kernel.
In Ubuntu's case being DCC based would mean it would be smoother to send
useful bug and feature patches to Debian. I'm not saying it's neccesary,
but it would make it easier to collaborate.
More information about the sounder