Re: XLibre in Debian

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Thu, 02 Oct 2025 14:48:12 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.project
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<5926474.DvuYhMxLoT@soren-desktop>
On Thursday, October 2, 2025 2:42:47 PM Mountain Standard Time Andrew M.A. 
Cater wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:24:48PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 2, 2025 11:03:07 AM Mountain Standard Time Antoine Le
> > 
> > Gonidec wrote:
> > > Le Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 01:07:43PM +0000, Wojciech Lipinski a écrit :
> > > > I would like to ask if there are any plans to include XLibre (fork of
> > > > X11)
> > > > in Debian. (…)
> > > 
> > > I strongly oppose the inclusion of XLibre or any related tool in Debian.
> > > Or, for what it’s worth, the inclusion of anything developed by that 
team.
> > 
> > Not knowing anything about XLibre or the team that develops it, I am 
curious
> > to know what would cause you to be so opposed to anything developed by 
that
> > team.  Indeed, I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting
> > software
> > that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops 
it.
> 
> Soren,
> 
> Other projects - including Fedora and Ubuntu - have issues with the 
stability
> of the code from a single developer. Those projects - and many individuals -
> may also disapprove of controversial political opinions from the single
> developer.
> 
> On occasion, we *do* take wider considerations into account in the Project
> before adopting DFSG-software.
> 
> All the very best, as ever,

That is true.  I certainly can imagine a scenario where Debian would ban 
contributions from a particular developer or a team of developers.  For 
example, if they had a track record of *intentionally* trying to introduce 
security vulnerabilities into Debian.

However, I an not personally aware of any of these scenarios ever arising.  
And certainly, if they did arise, I would expect there would be some 
discussion about them and such a decision would be documented somewhere.

So, as I said, I am not accustomed to Debian categorically rejecting software 
that is DFSG-free from inclusion based solely on the team that develops it.  
If there is some reason why that should apply in this case, I would very much 
like to know what it is.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)