Forking (was Ubuntu Under Attack)

['Forum Post]

Anders Karlsson Wrote: 
> On 12/22/05, 'Forum Post <ulist (AT) gs1 (DOT) ubuntuforums.org> wrote:

> > However I think

> > > Just to be clear, I'll say it again, for the record. We don't aim
> for

> > > "binary compatibility" with any other distribution.

> > Is not what we are talking about.... even deb-src compatibility ?

> 

> *binary* compatibility.. *binary*.. think about it..

> 

> --

> Anders Karlsson <trudheim (AT) gmail (DOT) com>

> -- 

> ubuntu-users mailing list

> ubuntu-users (AT) lists (DOT) ubuntu.com

> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users





I am thinking, 

If the libraries for Ubuntu are labelled differently then you can't
compile against them and some of them seem a little trivial.  Why do we
need an Ubuntu specific aspell-sv ?  Why indeed do we need an Ubuntu
specific cupsys  ... because it needs hacking for the sudo? but it
introduces a bug which I doubt will be fixed in the
/etc/cups/cupsd.conf



Or why a specific libncurses ... I mean the version is pretty trivial
.. it only ncurses afterall.  



Basically its a decision to deviate from Debian as possible not a
decision to deviate when they have to.  Because of the way dep tree's
work it will propogate and eventually end up with every part of the
distro different in some way.  



Thus the non-binary parts start to deviate also.... 



Like I say I think its more "we can't have 100% binary com+patibility
so we won't try and be compatible"  not "We can't have 100% binary
compatibility but we will try where possible"


-- 
Gowator