Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:26:05AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]: Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he was. Again my question: Do you seriously consider calling Linus and RMS Debian Developers? Shuttleworth is using a *figure of speech*. A figure of speech is something not to be taken literally. Figures of speech are used all the time and they make language more interesting. Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly have been people who uttered Hey, he's not German! He's lying!. But luckily most people will have understood what he meant. Hi Thijs, I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an Ubuntu developer in the same vein as the quote from JFK when he was in Berlin' or 'Every Debian developer is an Ubuntu developer in the sense that all of the Debian developers work is used as a basis for the work of Ubuntu developer' Cheers, Kev - -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ ' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDz00Iv8UcC1qRZVMRAjpGAJoCJkC2PoCIpXW8/7JiN0XDPy8lLgCfb6UR wb5Y/dqdkkqDZUUbujEZb/A= =mIW+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 21:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull by Debian (in most cases) I am pleased to report to all who were confused or offended by the ambiguities in these quotations that Mark has clarified them both in the wiki already. :-) Considere the following: - right now there are no Ubuntu changes to my package - if Ubuntu suddenly does change my package for whatever reason, there's absolutely no way I'll suddenly know to go check the patch page. The PTS already contains this information; if you want asynchronous notification, that should be easy to arrange within the PTS. right, that solves part of it. BUT this still doesn't help with the having multiple logical changes (most of which might not apply) in a single patch (an example of which was detailed earlier in this subthread) Problems I have with this: - I don't know of any upstream that accepts patches like the one discussed. Let along does so routinely. So why is Debian expected to be different in this regard? - After having looked over a new patch with the same/similar non-applicable changes a couple of times, and no (new) applicable changes people will, quite rightly IMHO, stop looking at the linked ubuntu patches, which is surely not what Ubuntu wants? (from comments I've seen in blogs and other places, this is definately a major source of frustration on the side of DD's). Providing 1 patch per logical change should be possible, assuming each logical change is made seperately. (Which should be the case most of the time I expect?) Has Ubuntu looked into this? If so what were the problems keeping this from happening? Is it completely impractical, is it being worked on, or ... ? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) pgpk5tGMUro5T.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an Ubuntu developer in the same vein as the quote from JFK when he was in Berlin' or 'Every Debian developer is an Ubuntu developer in the sense that all of the Debian developers work is used as a basis for the work of Ubuntu developer' This already happened. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]: Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he was. Again my question: Do you seriously consider calling Linus and RMS Debian Developers? Shuttleworth is using a *figure of speech*. A figure of speech is something not to be taken literally. Figures of speech are used all the time and they make language more interesting. Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly have been people who uttered Hey, he's not German! He's lying!. But luckily most people will have understood what he meant. Same goes for Shuttleworth here, if it wasn't obvious from the context already (which IMO it was), it's certainly clear now that this a way to express how important Debian developers are to the state of Ubuntu. And yes indeed, in the same sense could he have said that Stallman or Torvalds are Ubuntu or Debian developers. As an indication of how important these two people are for the foundations of our OS. Not literally. I hope this confusion is cleared up a bit now. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
[EMAIL PROTECTED], if you read that: Fix your mail setup, I'm not interested in getting double mails from whatever setup you have there. Thanks] * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: Do we call RMS a Debian developer? Do we call Linus a Debian Developer? Does anyone seriously consider that? Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he was. Again my question: Do you seriously consider calling Linus and RMS Debian Developers? Even when you know exactly what this term refers so? Tell me why I should think that a derivated Debian distribution doesn't seem to be aware of the definition of this term within Debian. Sorry, Matt, but that does show to me that you aren't aware of the difference of these statements, which very much they are. Pardon, but that's ridiculous. I don't have upload permission at all, can't do anything about my packages, there are changed packages with still my name as maintainer that I never got any information about -- and you still have the guts to call me a Ubuntu developer? Sorry for laughing into your face for that... It isn't productive to take this kind of jeering tone. So you want to turn down this honest (and yes, I admit emotional driven, though still honest) question with such a statement? Do you really call people Ubuntu developers who don't have a real chance to do anything about what it is done to their packages and aren't informed about such actions? Please don't avoid this question again, because it is there. I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement on behalf of the project, and that malicious intent is far from the only (or even the most common) reason for errors. It could very well be that Mark or someone else originally wrote from Debian and the quote was transcribed incorrectly. Then pretty please fix it. In any case, as I said, I think the meaning of the sentence as a whole is sufficiently unambiguous, though for the sake of clarity I will ask Mark to look and correct it if appropriate. It isn't. The difference between to and from is a thing that is very much a difference. Because the to is the thing that isn't really working, or do you really think there would be so much fuss if the sync from Ubuntu back to Debian would really work? This had been commonplace for Debian derivatives for years before Ubuntu existed, and when the issue was raised regarding Ubuntu, I asked for input from the Debian community as to what to do. The issue is not at all obvious, and in fact it's quite similar to the attribution of upstream authors of packages which are modified in Debian, which is even older. I don't know what was done for years, but I know for one thing that I was never contacted about changes to packages and if I'd approve them. Leaving my name in their as maintainer for a _changed_ package implies to some degree that I'm sort-of approving it. Either by being MIA through an NMU, through some team maintenance or similar. I can't do anything to revert such changes (no matter how good or bad I consider them) in packages in Ubuntu. I'm not responsible for the package in Ubuntu, so why should my name be in there? About the reasoning others have done that, too, that is mainly used in kindergardens, I don't buy it. It sounds like a very cheap excuse. We aren't discussing others (and yes, I would have raised the same concerns there too, if I would have been made aware of it), we are discussing Ubuntu. I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. What press release, and how does d-d-a enter into it? You do read d-d-a, don't you? I am refering to buxy's mail, which stirred this all up. If you had doubts about which packages were included, it wouldn't have taken much effort on your part to find out. So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around and do what would had been so easy for Ubuntu, to inform the maintainers of packages, maybe only those that were changed upon? Do you truly see this as such a radical departure from how Debian and other distributions already work? Yes, I do. Free software is rarely so clear-cut. By the time a piece of free software arrives in the hands of a user, it has passed through more than one set of hands and more often than not, modified from its original version. But then the people who change it don't publish it under the name of others. And it is more common than uncommon that the people who change something send the changes back, instead of waiting for their upstream to stumble upon it and notice that there were changes in there. As soon as the issue was raised (and although it was raised in a Debian forum, without any attempt to contact a representative of
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen. Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents should be implicit. However, regardless of whether it's an accurate quote, it's quite clear to me from context that your interpretation doesn't match the text. The full quote is We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible. It should be obvious from the remainder of the sentence that it is talking about propagation of changes *from* Debian *to* Ubuntu. syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull by Debian (in most cases) what you're describing above is reforking from the latest upstream regularly, while that will indeed minimize divergence, it's not even close to being the same thing as syncing the package with Debian there's notting inherently wrong with the ubuntu approach you just described, but it is not wat is listed as ubuntu behavior. I can only speak for myself (like everyone anyway, but it seems to be mentioned), I haven't noticed anyone reaching me, so I hadn't had any chance to burn anyone. The only contact with respect to Ubuntu was a user disappointed that one of my packages in Debian had a fix that the one in Ubuntu hadn't... for several weeks. All I could do is thank him for appreciating my work but that it's out of my hands to fix it for Ubuntu because I never was notified about that it's included there, and wouldn't know at all who to contact therefore. It was inappropriate for this user to raise this issue with you, rather than with Ubuntu, but that's been discussed elsewhere in this thread already. What I find interesting about your statement is that you seem to imply that the situation would have been better if you had been notified that your package was a part of Ubuntu. Considere the following: - right now there are no Ubuntu changes to my package - if Ubuntu suddenly does change my package for whatever reason, there's absolutely no way I'll suddenly know to go check the patch page. The above problem becomes worse when - 1 DD needs to do this for lots of packages - a package has lots of changes, some/most of which are not applicable to Debian (mentioned earlier were whitespace changes, grateous autotool-changes, changes to dpatch...), all which have to be sepperated from the applicable changes each time one checks for new differences That's a clear problem that becomes nightmarish for large amounts of packages and/or non-applicable changes, it's also the problem pointed at in the above IMHO This would be technically simple to implement, but I'm not convinced that it's possible to do it in a socially acceptable way. Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related announcements to Debian mailing lists has been deemed inappropriate by many in Debian as well. Not what's being asked: the question was to notify every Debian maintainer every time a new change is being made to the ubuntu version that they should look at merging back (dare I suggest by using Debian BTS?) I find this type of disclaimer very frustrating. I see a number of opinions expressed about the Ubuntu community by persons with no first-hand experience with it. Most Debian maintainers have probably never interacted with Ubuntu, and there's no reason that most of them should expect to. Setting aside the debate about patch submission for a moment, in the case of most packages, there are no patches in Ubuntu relative to Debian. right, so please notify the maintainer when there is indeed a (new) patch so they know to go look for it? As you've just pointed out presence of patches is not the default state. In fact, I just looked, and I found only one package with maintainer [EMAIL PROTECTED] which has a delta in Ubuntu: libmetakit2.4.9.3. I read the patch just now; here's what's in it: - Transition to python2.4 as the default Python version in Ubuntu. You don't want this patch for Debian yet. - Packaging transition for the gcc4 C++ ABI. Debian developers were notified about the availability of these patches in Ubuntu when the transition began in Debian, though it looks like you chose not to use it, and rebuilt the package instead. - autoconf has been re-run. In other words, I don't see what it is that you're dissatisfied about, in your role as maintainer of these
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]: So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to ubuntu, checking what other Debian derivates, Fedora, OpenSuSe or even Gentoo etc have done for the same software you are packaging might reveal patches and changes. It is true that all that information is not available at one central place, which makes this job a bit troublesome. Setting such setup should not be that hard, it just requires LOTS of diskspace and bandwidth.. So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful for a d-d-a mail so we are aware of it. This is what also wonder about ubuntu-haters. Somehow it is OK for Debian to have different opinions and preferences (Tell me about changes vs don't spam me or You don't Attribute my work vs Don't put my name there). But at the same time you require a explict policy from ubuntu and anytime a ubuntu developer says something about it is considered a official position statetement.. Until we can do a official statement of debian derivate policy ourselfs, we can hardly require it from them.. Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes? The same can be claimed about about Debian and our upstreams. Not all maintainers submit their patches upstream, and sometimes our lack of co-operation have made our upstreams really unhappy (Remember micq?). However, that is not an excuse for Debian Derivate Developers not to co-operate with Debian Maintainers, or for us with our upstreams. And I like to point out that there isn't any correspondence between the ubuntu developers and the debian developers in respect to getting sensible patches they do back into debian, which very much disappoints me, if not does get me a bad opinion on the intentions of ubuntu. Ubuntu (and other derivates) are using the same freedoms Debian is built upon. We would not accept a licence that required us to submit our patches upstream (dissident and desert island tests), so howcome it is OK to require such behaviour from our downstreams? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
[don't be confused about the To header, this is merly just for testing a propable b0rked setup] * Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-18 10:26]: Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly have been people who uttered Hey, he's not German! He's lying!. But luckily most people will have understood what he meant. Then it's still Kennedy's problem, because he didn't claim something for others. I know what you mean, though Mark is forcing a claim onto us, where the term Debian Developer is quite strictly defined within our roles, people in the NM queue aren't called Debian Developers. For me and quite some others, if you read the thread, the term $foo Developer implies that the person is able to incorporate changes into $foo directly. I understand what Mark meant, but on the wiki page where the cite is there isn't any context at all, and no explenation on how it's meant. It's vastly misunderstandable. Same goes for Shuttleworth here, if it wasn't obvious from the context already (which IMO it was) The thing is, there isn't any context in that wiki page. I'm pleased that he sees us as (in)valueable, but given that still every now and then misguided reports appear doesn't really help, especially when it's about ubuntu changed packages which we can't do anything about. So long, Alfie -- use Mail::Signature; $sig = Mail::Signature-new; print $sig-random; signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote: Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents should be implicit. However, regardless of whether it's an accurate quote, it's quite clear to me from context that your interpretation doesn't match the text. The full quote is We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible. It should be obvious from the remainder of the sentence that it is talking about propagation of changes *from* Debian *to* Ubuntu. syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull by Debian (in most cases) It's meant to be shorthand for syncing [the package in Ubuntu] to [match the version in] Debian, or similar; I've certainly used the same colloquial shorthand in bug reports and such without realising that it could be confusing if stripped of all its context. Although, like Matt, I do think that the context (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth, near the bottom) clarifies the meaning, I agree it's not the best phrasing and for grammatical reasons should be changed to synced from Debian. Matt has already said he'll ask for this to be changed (it's on Mark's personal wiki page, so changing it directly would be a bit rude), so hopefully we can stop going round in circles on this one. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wednesday, 18 January 2006 11:30, Riku Voipio wrote: On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]: So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to ubuntu, checking what other Debian derivates, Fedora, OpenSuSe or even Gentoo etc have done for the same software you are packaging might reveal patches and changes. So we agree that Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSuSE give back something similar to Debian, but only Ubuntu uses Debian in its PR. Best regards -- Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpPFkzASGL9z.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote: The full quote is We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible. It should be obvious from the remainder of the sentence that it is talking about propagation of changes *from* Debian *to* Ubuntu. syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian regularly, whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull by Debian (in most cases) I am pleased to report to all who were confused or offended by the ambiguities in these quotations that Mark has clarified them both in the wiki already. Considere the following: - right now there are no Ubuntu changes to my package - if Ubuntu suddenly does change my package for whatever reason, there's absolutely no way I'll suddenly know to go check the patch page. The PTS already contains this information; if you want asynchronous notification, that should be easy to arrange within the PTS. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-17 11:36]: I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement on behalf of the project, and that malicious intent is far from the only (or even the most common) reason for errors. It could very well be that Mark or someone else originally wrote from Debian and the quote was transcribed incorrectly. Then pretty please fix it. You surely understand that it isn't appropriate for me to change a quote which is attributed to someone else. However, I did ask Mark to clarify it, and he has done so, so hopefully you can rest easy and this subthread can die. I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. What press release, and how does d-d-a enter into it? You do read d-d-a, don't you? I am refering to buxy's mail, which stirred this all up. I did, but I have no idea what you meant to say by a press release so you can add d-d-a to your announce lists, or how this relates to the mail that you cite. Perhaps you could rephrase it more clearly? The grammar in the original is difficult to parse. Do you not read debian-devel-announce? Yes, I do. Again, I cite myself: I wonder why I never received any bugreport about my stupid and wrong C++ transition here... Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes? Please, be reasonable. You were notified about the existence of the patch in an announcement on a mailing list that Debian developers are required to read. Don't blame Ubuntu because you didn't use this information. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:30:22PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful for a d-d-a mail so we are aware of it. This is what also wonder about ubuntu-haters. Somehow it is OK for Debian to have different opinions and preferences (Tell me about changes vs don't spam me or You don't Attribute my work vs Don't put my name there). But at the same time you require a explict policy from ubuntu and anytime a ubuntu developer says something about it is considered a official position statetement.. Until we can do a official statement of debian derivate policy ourselfs, we can hardly require it from them.. We don't have to require an official position statement from Ubuntu -- it's already been published. The other difference is that Ubuntu has a Dictator For Life, who runs the show, while Debian is just a loose collection of people who elect someone annually to keep them out of mischief. grin Also, other Debian derivatives and Gentoo/Fedora/OpenSUSE don't make a habit of touting their contributions to Debian, and that's been the main complaint that I've seen in this thread -- that Ubuntu *talks* about contributing back to Debian, but isn't *seen* to be doing so, on a systematic basis. Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes? The same can be claimed about about Debian and our upstreams. Not all maintainers submit their patches upstream, and sometimes our lack of co-operation have made our upstreams really unhappy (Remember micq?). The micq debacle wasn't about Debian not sending patches upstream, it was about Debian not being able to keep up-to-date with the intentional breakages of the ICQ protocol by Miribilis, and consequently making micq (and hence, it's author) look bad. And I like to point out that there isn't any correspondence between the ubuntu developers and the debian developers in respect to getting sensible patches they do back into debian, which very much disappoints me, if not does get me a bad opinion on the intentions of ubuntu. Ubuntu (and other derivates) are using the same freedoms Debian is built upon. We would not accept a licence that required us to submit our patches upstream (dissident and desert island tests), so howcome it is OK to require such behaviour from our downstreams? We're not requiring any particular behaviour from our downstreams beyond licence compliance and keeping their promises. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:36:12PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-18 10:26]: Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly have been people who uttered Hey, he's not German! He's lying!. But luckily most people will have understood what he meant. Then it's still Kennedy's problem, because he didn't claim something for others. Perhaps you'd find the We are all Americans saying more on point. (http://www.worldpress.org/1101we_are_all_americans.htm) Can you take it to alt.usage.english or something instead though? FWIW, while I don't call myself an Ubuntu developer, I don't really have any problem with what Mark and others are saying -- they're trying to give appropriate acknowledgement that their work's built on ours, which, frankly I appreciate, and I think benefits Debian immensely. I wouldn't have any problem with saying Linus or Dave Miller are Debian developers in the sense meant by Mark and others, and I think it's a pretty cool property of free software development that they can and do contribute to Debian without having to actually use it themselves or even particularly care about it. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Robert Collins wrote: And yet most upstreams can get pretty much arbitrary code into Debian, just by committing it?. How many DD's read the -entire- diff on major version upgrades from upstream. And not just read, audit. Not all, but it might be quite a few more than what you seem to expect given the ammount of stressing you place on -entire- diff. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
* Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-16 15:39]: On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time, like Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer. If I were I would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even say that they are using my packages directly. Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I do, I'll attempt to explain. Do we call RMS a Debian developer? Do we call Linus a Debian Developer? Does anyone seriously consider that? Pardon, but that's ridiculous. I don't have upload permission at all, can't do anything about my packages, there are changed packages with still my name as maintainer that I never got any information about -- and you still have the guts to call me a Ubuntu developer? Sorry for laughing into your face for that... It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen. Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents should be implicit. It's still as cite from Mark on there, and I don't think that the cite is wrong. Or do you rather consider your fellow developers putting false statements intenionally there? However, regardless of whether it's an accurate quote, it's quite clear to me from context that your interpretation doesn't match the text. My interpretation of regularly and sync and _especially_ the We most hopefully doesn't vary very much with that of most people. The full quote is We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible. It should be obvious from the remainder of the sentence that it is talking about propagation of changes *from* Debian *to* Ubuntu. Then I guess the to should be changed into a from, just to get the direction where the sync really happens and what you are willing to really do straight with the reality. It was inappropriate for this user to raise this issue with you, rather than with Ubuntu, but that's been discussed elsewhere in this thread already. So? There is the Maintainer field that still has my name and my email address in it as being responsible for that very package -- where I can't do anything against it. That's simply wrong. What I find interesting about your statement is that you seem to imply that the situation would have been better if you had been notified that your package was a part of Ubuntu. Then I would had been able to a.) check if someone might add changes, b.) to check if my address and name is in the changed package, and c.) inform the person at hand that I don't think that the changes make much sense and if there are changes needed for ubuntu that they should at least have the courtsey to leave me out of the Mainainer field, becasue again: _I_ can't do anything for the package in ubuntu. I have no upload rights there. Yes, the situation would had been _immensly_ been better. It would had shown at least that Ubuntu cares for its upstream. This would be technically simple to implement, but I'm not convinced that it's possible to do it in a socially acceptable way. Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related announcements to Debian mailing lists has been deemed inappropriate by many in Debian as well. From first I knew only that there is this Ubuntu which goes for one CD with gnome and xorg on it. I thought fine, I don't have a package in that range, so why should it bother me too much, so I didn't check. Do you really think that everyone in Debian is aware that there exist a thing like multiverse or whatever which seems to include every single package that is in Debian? I wasn't, for a very long time. An announce along that lines instead of a press release so you can add d-d-a to your announce lists would hadn't stirred up so much bad blood, don't you think so? The creation of Ubuntu was *very* widely publicized, as was the fact that it was based on Debian, and this fact has been mentioned countless times since, both in the press and on Debian mailing lists. But it wasn't really mentioned that it includes every single package that is out there Again, beside that, it would had been a courtsey to change the Maintainer field, or send patches back. Applying patches and leaving the Maintainer field to a DD is just terribly impolite, because the Maintainer isn't the maintainer anymore and can't do anything about it, and additionally doesn't get informed at all about the changes! I ask you,
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-16 15:39]: Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I do, I'll attempt to explain. Do we call RMS a Debian developer? Do we call Linus a Debian Developer? Does anyone seriously consider that? Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he was. Pardon, but that's ridiculous. I don't have upload permission at all, can't do anything about my packages, there are changed packages with still my name as maintainer that I never got any information about -- and you still have the guts to call me a Ubuntu developer? Sorry for laughing into your face for that... It isn't productive to take this kind of jeering tone. Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents should be implicit. It's still as cite from Mark on there, and I don't think that the cite is wrong. Or do you rather consider your fellow developers putting false statements intenionally there? I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement on behalf of the project, and that malicious intent is far from the only (or even the most common) reason for errors. It could very well be that Mark or someone else originally wrote from Debian and the quote was transcribed incorrectly. In any case, as I said, I think the meaning of the sentence as a whole is sufficiently unambiguous, though for the sake of clarity I will ask Mark to look and correct it if appropriate. It was inappropriate for this user to raise this issue with you, rather than with Ubuntu, but that's been discussed elsewhere in this thread already. So? There is the Maintainer field that still has my name and my email address in it as being responsible for that very package -- where I can't do anything against it. That's simply wrong. This had been commonplace for Debian derivatives for years before Ubuntu existed, and when the issue was raised regarding Ubuntu, I asked for input from the Debian community as to what to do. The issue is not at all obvious, and in fact it's quite similar to the attribution of upstream authors of packages which are modified in Debian, which is even older. What I find interesting about your statement is that you seem to imply that the situation would have been better if you had been notified that your package was a part of Ubuntu. [...] Yes, the situation would had been _immensly_ been better. It would had shown at least that Ubuntu cares for its upstream. Ubuntu has been in communication with Debian, primarily on this and other Debian mailing lists, about what we are doing since before the project even had a name. We've been very vocal about our development process, which essentially amounts to a branch of the Debian archive. I don't think that a credible claim could be made that Debian was not notified that Ubuntu includes packages from Debian. This is what it means to be a derivative. This would be technically simple to implement, but I'm not convinced that it's possible to do it in a socially acceptable way. Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related announcements to Debian mailing lists has been deemed inappropriate by many in Debian as well. From first I knew only that there is this Ubuntu which goes for one CD with gnome and xorg on it. I thought fine, I don't have a package in that range, so why should it bother me too much, so I didn't check. Do you really think that everyone in Debian is aware that there exist a thing like multiverse or whatever which seems to include every single package that is in Debian? I wasn't, for a very long time. Debian, too, distributes software via networked mirrors which is not included on the official CDs. There is nothing surprising or devious in this. An announce along that lines instead of a press release so you can add d-d-a to your announce lists would hadn't stirred up so much bad blood I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. What press release, and how does d-d-a enter into it? The creation of Ubuntu was *very* widely publicized, as was the fact that it was based on Debian, and this fact has been mentioned countless times since, both in the press and on Debian mailing lists. But it wasn't really mentioned that it includes every single package that is out there Ubuntu is, and always has been, a branch of sid. This has been pointed out, among other places, on debian-devel and on the front page of LWN. Not a subset or a miniature distribution, but a derivative of the complete Debian
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:39:37PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: Matt Zimmerman writes: Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you... Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer implies to me that I can make uploads to Ubuntu. I can't (not that I'm asking for that privilege). I don't doubt that it was meant as an expression of gratitude and camaraderie, but it does not come across that way. Perhaps Every Debian developer is, in a sense, also an Ubuntu developer might get the point across more clearly. On behalf of those of you who insist on this interpretation, I've already suggested that the wording might be improved, even though I personally think that it's fine as-is. Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me... It doesn't to me. I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using my packages. Have you ever received such a notification? There are hundreds of distributions based on Debian, and more appearing all the time. Distributions based on Ubuntu are using your packages as well. How much unsolicited mail is too much? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
I wrote: I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using my packages. mdz writes: Have you ever received such a notification? Yes. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mdz writes: Have you ever received such a notification? Yes. I haven't. I'm going to cry now :-((( -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time, like Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer. If I were I would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even say that they are using my packages directly. Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I do, I'll attempt to explain. Ubuntu is a Debian derivative. The work that Debian developers do is merged into Ubuntu as well. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are identical to the ones in Debian. The statement that you quoted is an expression of gratitude and camaraderie. I believe it was Mark who originally said it, but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the same sense, Debian developers. This is part of what makes free software so special, that one's contributions travel far and wide to benefit others, even if one has no direct involvement with them. It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen. Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents should be implicit. However, regardless of whether it's an accurate quote, it's quite clear to me from context that your interpretation doesn't match the text. The full quote is We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible. It should be obvious from the remainder of the sentence that it is talking about propagation of changes *from* Debian *to* Ubuntu. I can only speak for myself (like everyone anyway, but it seems to be mentioned), I haven't noticed anyone reaching me, so I hadn't had any chance to burn anyone. The only contact with respect to Ubuntu was a user disappointed that one of my packages in Debian had a fix that the one in Ubuntu hadn't... for several weeks. All I could do is thank him for appreciating my work but that it's out of my hands to fix it for Ubuntu because I never was notified about that it's included there, and wouldn't know at all who to contact therefore. It was inappropriate for this user to raise this issue with you, rather than with Ubuntu, but that's been discussed elsewhere in this thread already. What I find interesting about your statement is that you seem to imply that the situation would have been better if you had been notified that your package was a part of Ubuntu. This would be technically simple to implement, but I'm not convinced that it's possible to do it in a socially acceptable way. Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related announcements to Debian mailing lists has been deemed inappropriate by many in Debian as well. The creation of Ubuntu was *very* widely publicized, as was the fact that it was based on Debian, and this fact has been mentioned countless times since, both in the press and on Debian mailing lists. Clearly you were informed, one way or another. What was problematic about the way it happened, and how could it have been improved? They are really investing time on the co-operation, If they were, why would there be so much fuss about it? Well, yes, I think so. It's a complicated issue, and the fact that there are discussions about it doesn't imply that either party isn't making an effort. Again, speaking for myself, I haven't noticed such a thing for myself I find this type of disclaimer very frustrating. I see a number of opinions expressed about the Ubuntu community by persons with no first-hand experience with it. Most Debian maintainers have probably never interacted with Ubuntu, and there's no reason that most of them should expect to. Setting aside the debate about patch submission for a moment, in the case of most packages, there are no patches in Ubuntu relative to Debian. In fact, I just looked, and I found only one package with maintainer [EMAIL PROTECTED] which has a delta in Ubuntu: libmetakit2.4.9.3. I read the patch just now; here's what's in it: - Transition to python2.4 as the default Python version in Ubuntu. You don't want this patch for Debian yet. - Packaging transition for the gcc4 C++ ABI. Debian developers were notified about the availability of these patches in Ubuntu when the transition began in Debian, though it looks like you chose not to use it, and rebuilt the package instead. - autoconf has been re-run. In other words, I don't see what it is that you're dissatisfied about, in your role as maintainer of these packages. Are you speaking for yourself or on behalf of
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time, like Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer. If I were I would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even say that they are using my packages directly. Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I do, I'll attempt to explain. FWIW, Mark's statement is one that I flat out disagree with. I have no obligation or committment to Ubuntu, therefore I am not an Ubuntu developer. I appreciate his statement in the spirit I think he made it, but I don't appreciate people who take it and shove it down my throat to try to pretend that I have some committment to Ubuntu. but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the same sense, Debian developers. I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed that as a blanket statement. Now, analog and procmeter's upstreams have on occasion read/subscribed to the Debian BTS, sent patches to it, etc, and I certianly would be happy to tell them I consider them to be in a sense Debian developers because of that. But as a blanket statement it just makes the term Ubuntu|Debian developer a no-op. Most Debian maintainers have probably never interacted with Ubuntu, and there's no reason that most of them should expect to. And yet we're all Ubuntu developers, hmm? -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 19:21 -0500, Joey Hess wrote: but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the same sense, Debian developers. I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed that as a blanket statement. And yet most upstreams can get pretty much arbitrary code into Debian, just by committing it?. How many DD's read the -entire- diff on major version upgrades from upstream. And not just read, audit. Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
Matt Zimmerman writes: Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you... Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer implies to me that I can make uploads to Ubuntu. I can't (not that I'm asking for that privilege). I don't doubt that it was meant as an expression of gratitude and camaraderie, but it does not come across that way. Perhaps Every Debian developer is, in a sense, also an Ubuntu developer might get the point across more clearly. Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me... It doesn't to me. I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using my packages. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
also sprach Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.01.17.0039 +0100]: Ubuntu is a Debian derivative. The work that Debian developers do is merged into Ubuntu as well. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are identical to the ones in Debian. The statement that you quoted is an expression of gratitude and camaraderie. I believe it was Mark who originally said it, but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the s/Debian/Ubuntu same sense, Debian developers. This is part of what makes free software so And yes, all of this makes sense. I guess the issue some DDs have with this model is that they aren't treated as Upstream because there's a lack of information exchange. Moreover, Ubuntu has moved ahead in a few areas, and Debian followed, which makes it difficult to think in simple upstream-downstream terms. Note that I don't hold the opinion, and I appreciate what Ubuntu is doing -- I am just trying to echo the picture as I see it. I concur that Scott's patches are not very useful since they have been clearly automatically generated and often include autogenerated files (see libhid for instance), but all in all, Ubuntu is a worthy addition to the distro field, and Debian has profitted *a lot* already: gcc4, python2.4, zope, xorg, you name it. maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related announcements to Debian mailing ... not anymore than the migrated-to-testing-mails we get all the time. But anyway, we are not in need for more automated solutions. What should happen is that DDs should be able to find out who's responsible for their packages in Ubuntu, and the UD should treat the DD as upstream, discussing with her/him and planning out a strategy for changes. If a change is Ubuntu-specific, so be it. If it isn't, work with the DD to have it integrated into Debian. The creation of Ubuntu was *very* widely publicized, as was the fact that it ... it's still not called Debian for Humans :) -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught. -- oscar wilde signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Gerfried Fuchs wrote: It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen. They have their own timetable. They do their stabilization differently than debian does. Ubuntu freezes the packages at a certain point in time and only does manual syncs after that. Regularly could be once a year and still be regular. What do you want? decide which packages get to certain ubuntu release? Didn't they just offer you that chance? They are really investing time on the co-operation, If they were, why would there be so much fuss about it? Again, speaking for myself, I haven't noticed such a thing for myself, and there wouldn't be the need for utnubu if there were, don't you think so? As i see it utnubu is the middle ground for debian and ubuntu people. It's something that debian people want to do to keep up with Ubuntu. I see utnubu as a good thing, it solves problems that the people behind utnubu want to get solved. They decided to do the work instead of throwing it back to Ubuntu and saying It's your problem to make me agree with you. As utnubu page says: We are about cooperation, not confrontation, with Ubuntu. co-operation needs co-operation from both parties! they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it. Why should I pull something from Ubuntu? And find most of the time that there isn't anything to pull? Why does it work for Debian that Debian notifies its Upstream Developers, but not for Ubuntu to notify its Upstream Developers, which in this case is Debian? You are not forced to pull anything from Ubuntu. But you should remember that the packages that are being worked on outside of the ubuntu main are maintained by a small group (when compared to the people in debian) of people. They have limited time to push all changes to upstream and usually the changes are just for the packaging anyway. Also, you should remember that there are people that have said that they don't want to be in contact with ubuntu. So it's not an easy thing to notify debian people about the changes in their packages when some people get offended by the notification itself. If you have a solution for this, let me know. Or better yet, let the Ubuntu people know. It takes less effort to bitch and moan than to work together, maybe that's the reason. I ask you: Why should I try to work together with someone who didn't had at least the sign of coursey to notify people they base their work on about what they are doing, or at least _that_ they are doing it? If I don't know that they are doing it, why should I get the idea about that it might be a good idea to work with them? I know what of my packages are in Debian, and everyone can get a list quite easily through several different interfaces. In the mail this fuss is all about there is only one huge list which does have only package names, no maintainer, no nothing that allowes for easy usage of that list. It might be useful for people maintaining one single package, but for people with 10 or more it's getting annoying to have to pull the data out from there You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you go either way. And about pulling the changes, did you notice these: Debian side: http://packages.qa.debian.org/libm/libmetakit2.4.9.3.html http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/by_maint/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/large/ Ubuntu side: https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages I had a hard time finding your packages that were modified in ubuntu, so maybe that's something ubuntu people should work on. Other htan that, you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there, if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version. - - S -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDyhVvqbb3MLg9dhwRAvL8AJ9vzE0ty0xoYyL4AIwfXbOMNenDygCeJK+R SJQ1rFsd+05NYBbQmk3heao= =kqhs -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Sunday 15 January 2006 10:27, Sami Haahtinen wrote: What do you want? Bugs filed in Debian's bts, with the patches attached and the rationale why this patch is done. Just like many DD work with upstream, by pushing non-Debian changes back actively, and not just saying 'all are changes are in debian/patches in the source package, grab them if you want'. See also the recent thread about that interaction between some Debian user, some KDE upstream people and the KDE Debian maintainers, where things went not as smoothly as they could. Exactly the same problem. cheers -- vbi -- Could this mail be a fake? (Answer: No! - http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro) pgpsj2ATaikVK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some And why isn't this done? It's so simple to do. I would prefer to know about MY package in ubuntu before some user contacts me. other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you go either way. Wait a moment, just to clarify this, you mean if you take a Debian package change it for Ubuntu and let's say add your name to the maintainer field but also add an additional X-Debian-Mantainer field (for example) that lists the original maintainer, this will offend some fellow Debian maintainers? Anyone care to tell me why? But still, I have no problem with my name in the Ubuntu packages, but I'd expect to know about this BEFORE it gets published. And about pulling the changes, did you notice these: ... Ubuntu side: https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages Whow! No, noone ever told me that I have an entry there that looks like it is my entry but instead is created and kept up-to-date by someone else without even caring to tell me. Sorry, but this is not the way I would treat anyone. you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there, if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version. Right I just tried this, but found that I have to diff the diffs to find the changes. Or did I miss something. Again, this is not against Ubuntu, the distribution, but I would expect a different treatment of upstream authors. I wrote some pieces of software that are available with all/most Linux distributions. Noone told me about this either, but I'm fine with it because they all tell people that I am the upstream and they did the packaging. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Better communication between projects [Was: ad-hominem construct deleted]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Meskes wrote: other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you go either way. Wait a moment, just to clarify this, you mean if you take a Debian package change it for Ubuntu and let's say add your name to the maintainer field but also add an additional X-Debian-Mantainer field (for example) that lists the original maintainer, this will offend some fellow Debian maintainers? Anyone care to tell me why? As far i understand, some people get offended by this too. Someone suggested this in some earlier thread and AFAIR it got shot down too. I agree that this would be the way to go. Or better yet, add a Modified-By: field that tells us who modified the package.. No wait.. we already have that! Is this a problem with the tools after all. Maybe we should modify the tools to contact the person who last modified the package. This doesn't fix the problem that the user might not know about this and while looking at the description gets misguided. Maybe we need something like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact package' That way we could even add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that could override the maintainer and modifier. What do you think? But still, I have no problem with my name in the Ubuntu packages, but I'd expect to know about this BEFORE it gets published. Yeah well, the damage has been done. Now it's time for damage control and rebuilding. Hopefully we and the next people who do this know better. And about pulling the changes, did you notice these: ... Ubuntu side: https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages Whow! No, noone ever told me that I have an entry there that looks like it is my entry but instead is created and kept up-to-date by someone else without even caring to tell me. Sorry, but this is not the way I would treat anyone. yeah, that page should mention that it's autogenerated. But basically it's just indexing other data. I would assume that later on it will index the debian archive too. you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there, if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version. Right I just tried this, but found that I have to diff the diffs to find the changes. Or did I miss something. Atleast in the ubuntu version of the patch repo, they try to separate packaging, changelog and other fixes. I wish they separated the autotools modifications too (filtered out updated autotools and so on) so that the rest of the changes would reflect the actual changes to the package itself. And apparently the utnubu repo uses the same logic :( - - S -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDyjV8qbb3MLg9dhwRAm21AKDhkjE3SiijYO4DagrWa3hUTFoddwCeLaKe gpblzezEAJYQuSbZ1RfJoCc= =ukzQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an interest to include improvements of other distributions in their packages (at least I do). Maemo (from the Nokia 770 fame) contains Debian packages. But d-d-a is no place to talk about it. I don't think many packages can profit from Maemo. But I do think that many packages can profit from Ubuntu improvements. d-d-a is the list where information that concers to and MUST be known by all DDs is sent. It might be of more or less relevance for some of us, but is definitely not a place for if you are interested stuff. True, but Andrew Suffield's approach is destructive and his Windows security advisories .. argument is not appropriate. The constructive approach is to point out on d-d, not d-d-a that the message does not really fit in the description of d-d-a, and to propose an alternative way to publish that kind information. The change of experimental, the h0x3r that we got in out machines, changes on infrastructure... those are the things. Ah! and of course, the release of etch. I just wanted to point out that the completly irrelevant argument is not really true. And if you try it the way round, by finding an appropriate mailing-list to post such information, you will probably end up @lists.debian.org anyway. AFAIK there's nothing like a debian-ubuntu-collaboration-announce list. Willi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Better communication between projects [Was: ad-hominem construct deleted]
[Sami Haahtinen] like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact package' That way we could even add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that could override the maintainer and modifier. Preferred contact is *exactly* what the Maintainer field means. [Well, and the co-maintainers (Uploaders) field, as a supplement.] Debian people who have a problem with downstream changing the Maintainer field need to get over themselves and think about whether debian/changelog gives them all the credit they are owed. (It certainly does, unless it's been abridged.) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
* Sami Haahtinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-15 11:27]: Gerfried Fuchs wrote: It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen. They have their own timetable. They do their stabilization differently than debian does. Ubuntu freezes the packages at a certain point in time and only does manual syncs after that. Regularly could be once a year and still be regular. What do you want? decide which packages get to certain ubuntu release? Didn't they just offer you that chance? I want that they inform their upstream about changes they do to their releases. This is what this whole fuzz is about. And I'm not the only one. Why should some upstream developers who don't even know that they are forked look around the net to find things that might be useful to them? Shouldn't rather the people that fork try to get the changes back into their upstream, to _ease their own work_? I mean... if they want to keep their patches forever and want to stumble into problems every now and then for taking a look why the patch doesn't apply anymore it's fine with me. But, they are saying that they sync it back, not that I would have to run around to most of the time find nothing That's not the way it's supposed to work. What I want: If someone changes something, they are on the call anyway. They know already that they changed something, what's so difficult to inform the involved parties? Especially as long as they keep the Maintainer field intact and let it look like the changes were done by me? Yes, it's in the changelog, but keeping the Maintainer means that I am still maintaining their fork, which I simply don't do since I have no access to upload there. As i see it utnubu is the middle ground for debian and ubuntu people. It's something that debian people want to do to keep up with Ubuntu. Yes, because Ubuntu isn't able or willing or whatever to keep up with Debian. It's still working the wrong way round, it's sort of reverse-engineering for hardware, because they know what they changed already, we have to work it out at first, just to find most of the time... nothing. I see utnubu as a good thing, it solves problems that the people behind utnubu want to get solved. They decided to do the work instead of throwing it back to Ubuntu and saying It's your problem to make me agree with you. As utnubu page says: We are about cooperation, not confrontation, with Ubuntu. It's not about agreeing. It's about working on stuff that is unique in the Free Software community: The people who are confronted with changed things have to actively pull the changes back, not the way around it works like everywhere else: That people who change something push it back. co-operation needs co-operation from both parties! Again, like I mentioned, I never was addressed about cooperation, so I never had the chance to turn it down. And I am very sure I'm not the only one in that state. You are not forced to pull anything from Ubuntu. Uh? But this is what it is all about. I _am_ sort of forced because they don't push their changes, like it would rather be expected. But you should remember that the packages that are being worked on outside of the ubuntu main are maintained by a small group (when compared to the people in debian) of people. They have limited time to push all changes to upstream and usually the changes are just for the packaging anyway. If they have limited time it should be in _their own_ interest to push the changes back. Hell, have you never stumbled upon a patch that simply doesn't apply anymore? It's a lot of work to take a look what's going wrong now again, whereas it is next to no work sending a small mail with I changed this or that, maybe you'd like to take a look at it. It's about investing into the future, but some people only seem to work only for today. That's also the reason why we have so many duplicated security advisories because people don't think about the future but only copy stuff because it's the easier approach for now Also, you should remember that there are people that have said that they don't want to be in contact with ubuntu. So this counts for everyone now? I don't think that the people that have said that they don't want to be in contact with ubuntu are the ones complaining about not hearing from them. This would be very strange, don't you think so? So it's not an easy thing to notify debian people about the changes in their packages when some people get offended by the notification itself. Why not? Either maintainer a list of bad-DDs or don't take it personal. I also don't take it personal if my upstreams sort-of ignore me most of the time. That doesn't mean that I don't contact them from time to time, because I care about the users of those packages. If ubuntu rather likes to shy away and forget about users
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On 1/15/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for people who can't understand sarcasm? debian-announce is not meant to play games. Someone made a (perhaps honest) mistake, and were duly criticised. But you know the rules. regards, martin
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for people who can't understand sarcasm? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Suffield wrote: If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for people who can't understand sarcasm? I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu post was important to quite a few people. I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it. I don't mean that there is no effort on Debian side either, but the visible effort (mostly because stunts like this) is mostly on the burning side. It takes less effort to bitch and moan than to work together, maybe that's the reason. - - S -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDySTYqbb3MLg9dhwRAt1cAJ9CYPBwwnUHH8/d2aqw5qOfjrG74wCguCzQ nrB7CNRodc1YPs5Goe4doK4= =V0lX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote: Andrew Suffield wrote: If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for people who can't understand sarcasm? I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu post was important to quite a few people. Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not, then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't think important to the subscribers is the correct measure. I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it. I considered editing this out, but I'm quoting it instead because it's a neat bit of libel[0] in an attempt to change the subject. This is not about Ubuntu at all - it could have been *anybody*'s press release being reposted. This is about appropriate use of Debian mailing lists. [0] I don't know who made this shit up, but as far as I'm aware it's purely fictional. We're objecting to Ubuntu's *PR*, and they're complaining that we're trying to stop collaberation? WTF? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not, then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't think important to the subscribers is the correct measure. But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an interest to include improvements of other distributions in their packages (at least I do). Willi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
Sami Haahtinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it. For those who are concerned with closer co-operation between Debian and Ubuntu, lots of people have already tried to send a clear message. The best way to encourage and help this is to *stop posting things like the above* and just go work on syncing changes. Help with the work, don't tell us what we do and don't believe. As long as you keep accusing people of burning bridges or bitching about other people's work, those of us who feel like we have legitimate concerns tend to want to repeat them or try to explain them again. The result is that threads about the *differences* get longer and longer and accumulate more posts, and as a result the gap looks wider and wider. If, on the other hand, you'd accept that a lot of Debian developers really care deeply about things like free software and aren't going to use tools like Launchpad *but still want to co-operate*, stopped bringing up the things that we disagree about, and started trying to improve communication by taking a few Ubuntu fixes and filing them as Debian patches, or helping with a Debian transition like the modular X transition that will obviate the need for tons of divergence, or did something else concrete to bring the distributions closer together, you'd find that many of the same people who are arguing with you here would happily help. Personally, I monitor the Ubuntu patches for all of my packages and apply whatever looks reasonable. Maybe it's not the best way to contribute back changes, but it works fine for me. It probably wouldn't if my packages had more complex differences, so finding a better way to communicate those complex differences would be valuable work. If closer collaboration is something you want to see, stop telling us that the only reason why we're not working harder for Ubuntu is because we're jealous, *listen* to what we're actually saying, and help synchronize the hard cases. All this nattering on mailing lists doesn't make the software any better. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote: I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu post was important to quite a few people. Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not, then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't think important to the subscribers is the correct measure. What i meant was that there are people in debian that moan and groan about ubuntu not asking them about their packages, so the original post was semi-justified because of that. i didn't mean that anything that might interest the people on the list is fair game. Burning bridges at all... I considered editing this out, but I'm quoting it instead because it's a neat bit of libel[0] in an attempt to change the subject. This is not about Ubuntu at all - it could have been *anybody*'s press release being reposted. This is about appropriate use of Debian mailing lists. I was not trying to change the subject. At the time your response looked like it was triggered by the name Ubuntu, which is not that uncommon on the lists. Personally i didn't see it as a press release, it was an informational mail directed at debian developers. IMHO, the original post was semi-justified, your post was not. [0] I don't know who made this shit up, but as far as I'm aware it's purely fictional. We're objecting to Ubuntu's *PR*, and they're complaining that we're trying to stop collaberation? WTF? I'm not saying that this is the official stand from either side. I keep an eye on both lists and this is the picture that comes out. I would assume that i'm not the only one that gets this picture just by reading the lists. - - S -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDyU8eqbb3MLg9dhwRAvRGAKCEaJF9sFV30+nFZ4gbfTUgnAsNUACgkrNI XhFOvHWXn++imv0jDmht8Is= =YrA9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 07:35:04PM +0100, Willi Mann wrote: But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an interest to include improvements of other distributions in their packages (at least I do). Maemo (from the Nokia 770 fame) contains Debian packages. But d-d-a is no place to talk about it. d-d-a is the list where information that concers to and MUST be known by all DDs is sent. It might be of more or less relevance for some of us, but is definitely not a place for if you are interested stuff. The change of experimental, the h0x3r that we got in out machines, changes on infrastructure... those are the things. Ah! and of course, the release of etch. -- Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.14|Helsinki Finland GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 I've decided what to do with my life. I wanna be a cleaner. --Mathilda (Leon, the Cleaner) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
* Sami Haahtinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-14 18:20]: I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was trying to achieve. It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time, like Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer. If I were I would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even say that they are using my packages directly. It's also about false statements like We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen. These two very statements are on the very page that were linked in this very misguided mail this fuss is all about. But what i can't understand is that people behind Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. I can only speak for myself (like everyone anyway, but it seems to be mentioned), I haven't noticed anyone reaching me, so I hadn't had any chance to burn anyone. The only contact with respect to Ubuntu was a user disappointed that one of my packages in Debian had a fix that the one in Ubuntu hadn't... for several weeks. All I could do is thank him for appreciating my work but that it's out of my hands to fix it for Ubuntu because I never was notified about that it's included there, and wouldn't know at all who to contact therefore. They are really investing time on the co-operation, If they were, why would there be so much fuss about it? Again, speaking for myself, I haven't noticed such a thing for myself, and there wouldn't be the need for utnubu if there were, don't you think so? they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it. Why should I pull something from Ubuntu? And find most of the time that there isn't anything to pull? Why does it work for Debian that Debian notifies its Upstream Developers, but not for Ubuntu to notify its Upstream Developers, which in this case is Debian? I don't mean that there is no effort on Debian side either, but the visible effort (mostly because stunts like this) is mostly on the burning side. And not even that seems to make them show that there is something going wrong. So what *shrugs* It takes less effort to bitch and moan than to work together, maybe that's the reason. I ask you: Why should I try to work together with someone who didn't had at least the sign of coursey to notify people they base their work on about what they are doing, or at least _that_ they are doing it? If I don't know that they are doing it, why should I get the idea about that it might be a good idea to work with them? I know what of my packages are in Debian, and everyone can get a list quite easily through several different interfaces. In the mail this fuss is all about there is only one huge list which does have only package names, no maintainer, no nothing that allowes for easy usage of that list. It might be useful for people maintaining one single package, but for people with 10 or more it's getting annoying to have to pull the data out from there So long, Alfie -- Die Angabe des vollständigen Realnamens erleichtert die Kommunikation im Usenet ungemein, man kann sich dann nämlich auf die Inhalte der Postings konzentrieren und muß nicht über Sinn/Unsinn von Pseudonymen o.ä. diskutieren. (Ingo Ließegang, de.newusers.questions, 6.10.1999) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
