Frederic Lehobey wrote:
Hi,
Thanks Jordan for your notification.
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 10:21:17AM -0800, Jordan Mantha wrote:
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
-- Lastly as the one behind Quantian, the to my knowledge single largest
collection of scientific / numerical / quantitative apps in one
ready-to-run place, I'd love to pull the two resources in and get, say,
the more polished desktop experience and menu organisation of (K)Ubuntu
back into Debian / Knoppix / Quantian, and would also love to pull some
of
the additional packages in. But I am
* still puzzled about the binary interchangeability, or lack thereof,
between Ubuntu and Debian
* confused as to why one would want to insert a package into Ubuntu
but not Debian (other than the needing a DD sponsor reason).
To be honest, I package for Ubuntu because it is the distro I use. I
don't run Debian (although maybe I should) so I would feel awkward about
packaging something for a distro that I don't even run. Now, maybe that
is my fault but I am encouraging Ubuntu packagers to go ahead and file
ITPs or RFPs and find sponsors.
This puzzled me. Is not packaging for Debian or for Ubuntu *exactly*
the same thing (technically speaking)? What about
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian ?
The irc discussion that led to the writing of
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian also led me to start this
thread. It is exactly what I am trying to do even though it isn't
necessarily simple for me because I did not come to Ubuntu from Debian.
From my perspective (I am just a beginning packager and not a MOTU or
DD) packaging for Debian and Ubuntu are very similar but not exactly the
same(technically speaking). For instance, gcc 4.0 and python 2.4
sometimes will lead to a patch in Ubuntu that wouldn't necessarily be in
sid (yet) but hopefully when sid moves to gcc 4.0 and python 2.4 (maybe
it has already) then DDs can use those Ubuntu patches. But one point
that I would like to make is that packaging is not completely a
technical process. There is a large social component to it as well in
the sense that you have to interact with sponsors to get your package
included into your distro and you need to communicate with other
packagers that will effect your package and you need to communicate with
the users of your package when the find bugs. To be honest, for me this
is not trivial and learning how to do these things takes time and effort
and I find it difficult enough that I initially didn't want to do it for
both Ubuntu and Debian and since I am an Ubuntu user and now interact
primarily with Ubuntu devs it is logical for me to use Ubuntu's tools
(REVU, ubuntu- mailing lists, and the Malone bug tracking system). Now
that I have somewhat of a handle on these I am trying to get into the
Debian process (ITPs, debian-mentors, BTS, etc.) so that I can properly
maintain my package in Debian as well because I feel like giving back to
the Debian community is the right thing to do.
Moreover, testimonies like this one (in French)
http://thomas.enix.org/Blog-20050907205353-Libre show it is `easy'
(using a chroot) to build Ubuntu packages from the working Debian
ones. Doing it the other way (Ubuntu only packages not existing in
Debian) requires additional work like the one performed by the utnubu
team. So this advocates a lot to my eyes creating packages for Debian
from the start (this way we all benefit from the new packages).
I agree that it is easier (currently) for packages to flow from Debian
to Ubuntu than from Ubuntu to Debian. I think this is probably the case
for just about any derivative distro. However, I do think that Ubuntu is
trying to work in this. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian is
a great example. I agree that from a technical perspective it makes
sense to package for Debian and then make changes in Ubuntu only if
necessary. But again, from an Ubuntu users perspective I feel like I
have to learn 2 distros to package for Debian but I can package for the
one I use and know and maybe somewhere along the line it can get back to
Debian. Now, if I care that it makes it to Debian (which I do) then I
will be motivated to take the time to learn Debian's way of sponsoring
packages, etc. In the future, as I learn more and more about Debian I
will probably start packaging for Debian more directly, although I will
still probably REVU to get feedback on my packaging. I think as Ubuntu
and it's packagers mature you will find more and more people doing that.
I really don't want to be confrontational, or start another useless flame
war. But given Debian and debian-science, how can we achieve the best
outcomes with the least amount of duplication and waste?
I agree. That is why I started this discussion. For me it comes down to
this, we have Debian users who will want to package/patch for Debian and
Ubuntu users who will want to package/patch for Ubuntu and what we need
Well, what I understand currently is that people who package/patch for
Debian are de facto packaging/patching for Ubuntu also in the same
time, aren't they? The other way in not yet automatic.
That is mostly true, except that there are times when Ubuntu needs to
add patches to make things work in Ubuntu but we try to minimize the
differences. There are automatically created patches that DDs can use at
http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ . I am not totally sure how
complete or useful they are (I have never had to use them) but an
example of trying to get the Ubuntu work back to Debian.
is for the Ubuntu packages/patches to get make it into Debian because
that is good for everybody. I wanted debian-science to be aware of what
we are doing over in Ubuntu so that we can communicate/coordinate as
needed to avoid duplication of work and make sure that we are giving
Debian/Ubuntu users the best distros we can.
Would the following proposal I made (without much success) some months
ago fulfil some of your wishes?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2005/08/msg00166.html
You proposal would indeed make it easier I believe for Ubuntu packagers
to get there stuff into Debian. I can't comment on it's feasibility
since that would have to be more commitment on the Debian end. For me at
the moment it is sufficient that if I package a scientific app for
Ubuntu I at least tell debian-science and hopefully file and ITP and get
a sponsor so that it goes into Debian. That should hopefully eliminate
duplication of work. There may be more long-term solutions but I don't
think we are in a terrible state as it is. On the Ubuntu end I think we
just need to get better at letting Debian know what we are doing. I am
personally trying to do this and I am encouraging my fellow Ubuntu
packagers to do the same.
Best regards,
Frederic
Thanks for your comments,
Jordan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
