Hi Matt, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:34:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Ubuntu could report in the BTS all the bugs it finds, and submit patches > > via the BTS.
[...] > Many patches are submitted via the BTS, though not every patch published in > the patch archive is submitted this way, for reasons which have been > discussed to death in previous threads. I personally appreciate the excellent work done by Ubuntu. Just looking at major GNOME improvements that directly resulted from Ubuntu efforts (by Debian Developers such as Sébastien Bacher) clearly shows how Ubuntu helps the free desktop evolve by leaps and bounds. What I think could be done in a significantly better way is for Ubuntu to have an explicit commitment to always discuss with the "upstream" Debian maintainer of a package before introducing an Ubuntu-specific diff, especially in cases where the patch would likely benefit Debian. This could take the form of an extra paragraph in the Ubuntu community pledge (I forgot exactly how it's called, sorry) that people must sign before being allowed to contribute packages to Ubuntu. That paragraph would state that: 1) diffs should be avoided unless absolutely necessary and 2) such divergences from the Debian package must always be discussed with the Debian maintainer and submitted as a patch to the BTS, before a decision is made to fork. 3) Debian should be treated as upstream, meaning that the Ubuntu developer that decided to fork must track the Debian package and contribute patches on a regular basis, just like the Debian maintainer would with the upstream developer of software he packaged for Debian. The explicit goal, in both cases, is to reduce diffs and streamline the task of merging useful patches from Ubuntu. Here's two examples of where such a course of action could have been useful, taking two of my own packages as an example: 1) rus-ispell Patched by doko to introduce a new upstream release. Never submitted to the BTS and required asking #ubuntu-motu to manually sync to my recent uploaded of an even newer upstream release, after repeated attempts to contact doko failed to produce results. 2) numlockx Patched by Reinhard Tartler to adjust compile paths for X.org 7.0 libs. Never submitted to the BTS and unnecessary since, as pointed out by a recent message from the X Task Force, the proper way to do this is to relibtoolize against autoconf version greater than 2.59a-4. Thus, I think that if Ubuntu placed an obligation upon its developers to always try discussing with the Debian maintainer before patching, a lot of unnecessary diffs could be avoided, just like in the above two cases. Just my two bits. Best Regards, -- Martin-Éric Racine http://q-funk.iki.fi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]