Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[David Nusinow]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> 
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same source.  Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
> > bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS
> > is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed
> > for *binary packages*.  The source is the same, so the field should NOT
> > be changed for *source packages*.
> 
> Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation 
> where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop 
> project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping 
> us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence?

Wow, just when I thought you couldn't be a bigger tool you write this. I've
had great experiences working with Ubuntu developers (who are, quite
simply, often Debian developers and thus part of our little tribe) and I
look forward to more of the same.  Maybe the next time you start trying to
do some real work for Debian rather than troll -project you'll find this
out for yourself.

 - David Nusinow


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[John Hasler]

Paul Johnson writes:
> Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is
> cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the
> debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or
> society...

Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just libel?

> ...what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence?

The fact that most of us are interested in cooperation or at least peaceful
coexistence.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:

> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same source.  Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
> > bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS
> > is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed
> > for *binary packages*.  The source is the same, so the field should NOT
> > be changed for *source packages*.

> Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation 
> where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop 
> project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping 
> us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence?

That we're here to build a superior operating system, not to engage in
counterproductive wanking out of jealousy over others success?

Oh, wait, you're not a DD, so I guess this is a different "we" you're
talking about having "officially" discourage Ubuntu's existence.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matthew Palmer]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:
> 
> > Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> > libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> > they share the same source.  Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
> > bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS
> > is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed
> > for *binary packages*.  The source is the same, so the field should NOT
> > be changed for *source packages*.
> 
> Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation 
> where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop 
> project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping 
> us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence?

I think that way lies madness, for so many reasons.  It's not exactly
encouraging of the principles of Free Software, nor is it particularly
practical.  Would we hold a GR to say "Ubuntu is the Antichrist"?  Some sort
of technical thing to micq our packages against Ubuntu?  I don't really see
the value in it, either -- what's it going to get us?  I seriously doubt
that, even if we *wanted* a PR war, that we could win it.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Paul Johnson]

On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote:

> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source.  Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
> bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS
> is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed
> for *binary packages*.  The source is the same, so the field should NOT
> be changed for *source packages*.

Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation 
where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop 
project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping 
us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence?

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


pgpqOs7lIBNk9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Petter Reinholdtsen]

[David Weinehall]
> Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
> libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
> they share the same source.

The same can be said about Debian architectures, when the autobuilder
build the packages at different times and with different sequences,
leaving the same source package build with different libraries on
different archs in Debian.  I guess on a good day we might see Ubuntu
as another arch for the packages were the same source is used...


> Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such
> issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good
> thing;

Yes, this is generally a good idea. :)

> thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*.

This is probably a good idea, yes.  Personally I do not mind being the
"maintainer" of binary packages build from unmodified sources in
Ubuntu.  I'm do not have any problem with being listed as "maintainer"
for modified packages either, but would prefer people with ubuntu to
do triage before a bug is reported to BTS, to make sure the problem
isn't related to the ubuntu environment.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[David Weinehall]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:26:57AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
[snip]
> In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer
> to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package
> when it gets resynched.
> 
> Now, before I confuse myself with word games and contemplate whether
> that implies "control" or not, I'm going to offer up the conjecture that
> bug reports on an Ubuntu universe package are potentially more relevant
> to a Debian maintainer than bug reports on a Debian stable package,
> since they're closer to the current unstable.

Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of
libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though
they share the same source.  Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the
bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS
is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed
for *binary packages*.  The source is the same, so the field should NOT
be changed for *source packages*.

If the bug indeed exists in both Ubuntu and Debian, then the bug is in
the source and needs fixing in Debian too, but if the bug is caused by
the Ubuntu build environment, then the bug is purely in the package,
and any bugreport would just waste the Debian developer's time, *AND*
risk Ubuntu losing vital information about a bug in their build
environment.  


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Scott Ritchie]

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:53 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
> > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch
> > it.
> 
> They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple
> reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the
> contents of the package!

But what about when packages in universe are simply merged in straight
from Debian?  It might be a strange semantic question: Is that the same
package, or a different one?

In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer
to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package
when it gets resynched.

Now, before I confuse myself with word games and contemplate whether
that implies "control" or not, I'm going to offer up the conjecture that
bug reports on an Ubuntu universe package are potentially more relevant
to a Debian maintainer than bug reports on a Debian stable package,
since they're closer to the current unstable.

Thoughts?
Scott Ritchie


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 03:44:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 
> >> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most 
> >> > of
> >> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, 
> >> > and
> >> > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
> >> > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will 
> >> > touch
> >> > it.
> >> 
> >> They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple
> >> reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the
> >> contents of the package!
> >
> > Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most
> > ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers.
> 
> Um, no, I don't recally saying in another email that ubuntu packages
> are maintained by the Debian maintainers.  In fact, I've said the opposite.
> 
> Are you confusing me with Matt?

Oh, yes, sorry.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
>> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
>> > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
>> > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch
>> > it.
>> 
>> They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple
>> reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the
>> contents of the package!
>
> Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most
> ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers.

Um, no, I don't recally saying in another email that ubuntu packages
are maintained by the Debian maintainers.  In fact, I've said the opposite.

Are you confusing me with Matt?

> Does this mean that those 'most' packages are maintained by the debian
> maintainers, who do uploads to ubuntu also ? How many is most in this case ?
> Do they also know about it ? I mean i was never proposed to make ubuntu
> maintenance of my packages for example, so i wonder how this works.

Um, I think you and I are in nearly complete agreement.  Do you have
me confused with someone else?

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
> > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch
> > it.
> 
> They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple
> reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the
> contents of the package!

Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most
ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers.

Does this mean that those 'most' packages are maintained by the debian
maintainers, who do uploads to ubuntu also ? How many is most in this case ?
Do they also know about it ? I mean i was never proposed to make ubuntu
maintenance of my packages for example, so i wonder how this works.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer.  If a
> user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
> MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
> basis, across the entire set of packages).  However, this is not the same
> thing as saying "the maintainer of this package is the MOTU team",
> especially not in the same sense as "[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the maintainer of
> libapache2-mod-auth-mysql".

Yes, it certainly is.  The maintainer is the person responsible for
bug triage and for making suitable changes as necessary.

I cannot change Ubuntu; I am therefore not the maintainer of any
package in Ubuntu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
> motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch
> it.

They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple
reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the
contents of the package!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> > > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> > 
> > The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you
> > simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even 
> > asking
> > the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread,
> > since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their
> > packages.
> 
> I've already addressed all of your points repeatedly in this thread.

Huh, what points ? First, sorry but i got lost in the thread somewhere at
about a quarter of its current size, so i may have missed some.

That said, you claim that "Most of the packages in universe are maintained
only by the Debian maintainer", and that is simply a mis-representation, if
not an outhright lie. 

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
> > closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
> > conversation.
> 
> I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project.  I've
> merely participated in the discussion and respected Mail-Followup-To.

Oh well, i wonder who added it then. I guess it is a closed list, but they
could at least disable the automatic reply or something.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> > outcome.
> 
> It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.

It will just be this thread all over again.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> outcome.

It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
> > > like "why is the package set up this way?", "what are your plans for it?",
> > > etc., while the MOTU team are not.
> > 
> > What the?  By that logic, the upstream author should be in the Maint: field,
> > since they're in the *best* position to answer those questions for the
> > majority content of the package.  At any rate, in most cases the answer,
> > from the Debian maintainer, to the first question would either be "Dunno,
> > can't remember" or "the previous maintainer was a known crack addict", while
> > the answer to the second would be " make sure it doesn't break, I
> > suppose" -- none of whick are particularly more interesting answers than
> > what you'd get from the MOTUs.
> 
> If I were to accept your declaration that the Debian maintainer is equally
> ill-equipped to discuss the package, then it follows that they are an
> equally valid value for the Maintainer field.

It only follows if your definition of maintainer is "can answer all
development questions".  If you're going to go that way, you may as well put
the man in the moon as the maintainer of your packages, as he's got as much
chance, in the general case, of answering those questions.  Thus, I'd say
that your definition of "Maintainer" is bollocks.

> There really isn't any point in arguing our individual views, though.  What
> I'm interested in is what will satisfy a majority of Debian developers, and
> the proposed poll seems like the closest we'll get to that.

All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
outcome.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it.  In Debian, 
> > > "Maintainer"
> > > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > > on-going well being of a package".  As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the 
> > > MOTUs
> > > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe.
> > 
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
> > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch
> > it.
> 
> But if a problem in a package in Ubuntu universe does appear, whose
> responsibility[1][2] is it to fix it?  Whatever the answer to that question,
> also answers the question "what should go in the Maintainer: field?".

And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer.  If a
user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the
MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized
basis, across the entire set of packages).  However, this is not the same
thing as saying "the maintainer of this package is the MOTU team",
especially not in the same sense as "[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the maintainer of
libapache2-mod-auth-mysql".

> > By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
> > like "why is the package set up this way?", "what are your plans for it?",
> > etc., while the MOTU team are not.
> 
> What the?  By that logic, the upstream author should be in the Maint: field,
> since they're in the *best* position to answer those questions for the
> majority content of the package.  At any rate, in most cases the answer,
> from the Debian maintainer, to the first question would either be "Dunno,
> can't remember" or "the previous maintainer was a known crack addict", while
> the answer to the second would be " make sure it doesn't break, I
> suppose" -- none of whick are particularly more interesting answers than
> what you'd get from the MOTUs.

If I were to accept your declaration that the Debian maintainer is equally
ill-equipped to discuss the package, then it follows that they are an
equally valid value for the Maintainer field.

There really isn't any point in arguing our individual views, though.  What
I'm interested in is what will satisfy a majority of Debian developers, and
the proposed poll seems like the closest we'll get to that.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it.  In Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going well being of a package".  As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
> > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe.
> 
> In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
> motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch
> it.

But if a problem in a package in Ubuntu universe does appear, whose
responsibility[1][2] is it to fix it?  Whatever the answer to that question,
also answers the question "what should go in the Maintainer: field?".

> By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
> like "why is the package set up this way?", "what are your plans for it?",
> etc., while the MOTU team are not.

What the?  By that logic, the upstream author should be in the Maint: field,
since they're in the *best* position to answer those questions for the
majority content of the package.  At any rate, in most cases the answer,
from the Debian maintainer, to the first question would either be "Dunno,
can't remember" or "the previous maintainer was a known crack addict", while
the answer to the second would be " make sure it doesn't break, I
suppose" -- none of whick are particularly more interesting answers than
what you'd get from the MOTUs.

- Matt

[1] Subject to the usual "we're all volunteers, yada yada" proviso.

[2] Remember also that with responsibility should come authority, so the
Debian maintainer is usually an immediate non-candidate in Ubuntu.

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
> closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
> conversation.

I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project.  I've
merely participated in the discussion and respected Mail-Followup-To.

I won't even start to discuss which end of the "friendly" stick I've been on
so far.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it.  In Debian, 
> > > "Maintainer"
> > > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > > on-going well being of a package".  As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the 
> > > MOTUs
> > > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe.
> > 
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> 
> The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you
> simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking
> the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread,
> since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their
> packages.

Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
conversation.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
> 
> The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you
> simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking
> the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread,
> since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their
> packages.

I've already addressed all of your points repeatedly in this thread.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it.  In Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going well being of a package".  As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
> > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe.
> 
> In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
> the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and

The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you
simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking
the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread,
since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their
packages.

I believe that altough in most case there is not much difference there may be
subtle differences between the ubuntu environment and the debian one, which
makes the handlign of bug reports non-evident. Also a pure debian maintainer
will have some trouble checking and testing any possible fix, not having a
ubuntu install done.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it.  In Debian, "Maintainer"
> means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> on-going well being of a package".  As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
> have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe.

In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however.  Most of
the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
propagated unmodified into Ubuntu.  It is only when there is a specific
motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch
it.

By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
like "why is the package set up this way?", "what are your plans for it?",
etc., while the MOTU team are not.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matthew Palmer]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> > packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
> 
> This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
> distro's agree on then.
> 
> And one more problem: Ubuntu doesn't have the same "maintainer"
> concept as Debian has...

I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it.  In Debian, "Maintainer"
means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
on-going well being of a package".  As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Derivatives and the Version: field (Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu)

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here.  You received
>> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
>> contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
>> non-controversial.
>> 
>> Your response was not to say "yes, great!" but rather to argue about
>> whether these are things Debian should care about, and protest that
>> they are not valuable and take too much work.
>
> What I saw was that a discussion with a practical point (treatment of the
> Maintainer field) was sidetracked because you started to focus on the
> Version field instead, and I asked you to justify your concern.

I think both of these are important.

Even more important is certainly the bug-reporting issue, I think.

> Furthermore, regardless of whether you think it is easy, a global change of
> the Version field is not something that I can even consider making in the
> middle of our short release cycle, so it really isn't much of a priority at
> this time.

Of course, but all that takes is "ah, this makes sense, we'll look at
it for the next release; since that's a short cycle, it's not a long
wait."

I am extremely patient with the plea that doing something takes time
and energy, and so it will happen eventually but not right away.  

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
>> > though?  This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
>> > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
>> > much inclined to try to un-break it in this particular way, given that
>> > it's non-trivial.
>> 
>> At least to avoid namespace conflict between Debian and Ubuntu .deb files.
>
> That seems like an abstract goal; what actual problem would be solved?

1) Developers would know immediately the origin of the package, making
   it easier to track down and identify tool-chain-dependent bugs and
   the like.

2) As Miles pointed out, version numbers are quite visible to users,
   so users would see and be reminded of the origin of the package.

3) Tools could automatically use the tag to detect inter-distribution
   mixing and warn.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number?  I don't.  I think you are
> arguing on abstract philosophical grounds rather than trying to solve a
> real problem.

The purpose of *this* change is not about non-confusion for users
(though certainly anything that could help is a good idea); the
purpose of *this* change is to aid *developers* in tracking down the
source of bugs.

The purpose of changing the *maintainer* is both to document
accurately, and to give a correct indication to users of who is
responsible for the package.

> People still do it on occasion,
> but at some point there's little that can be done to stop it - short of
> making the .deb formats purposely incompatible so you *can't*
> cross-pollinate your box even if you try.  It seems to me that using a
> -ubuntu version suffix just to indicate "this package is compiled for
> Ubuntu" would accomplish approximately nothing.  It's busy work, and I
> hope the Ubuntu team don't ever feel so badgered by this thread to
> actually waste their time doing it.

Actually, using a -ubuntu version would make it possible for dpkg to
automatically detect that you are mixing packages from different
distributions, and warn the user.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[JanC]

On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?

This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived
distro's agree on then.

And one more problem: Ubuntu doesn't have the same "maintainer"
concept as Debian has...

--
JanC

Derivatives and the Version: field (Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu)

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> In any case, I want to note what has just happened here.  You received
> a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
> contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
> non-controversial.
> 
> Your response was not to say "yes, great!" but rather to argue about
> whether these are things Debian should care about, and protest that
> they are not valuable and take too much work.

What I saw was that a discussion with a practical point (treatment of the
Maintainer field) was sidetracked because you started to focus on the
Version field instead, and I asked you to justify your concern.

Furthermore, regardless of whether you think it is easy, a global change of
the Version field is not something that I can even consider making in the
middle of our short release cycle, so it really isn't much of a priority at
this time.

The Maintainer field is something that I may be able to do something about,
and I'm awaiting the results of Jeroen's poll on that.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).  If it were
> > essential to version the packages differently, I would say that the source
> > package versions should be changed as well.  Bin-NMUs are more trouble than
> > they are worth.
> 
> The Source-Version problem will not affect Ubuntu because they rebuild
> both binary: all and binary: any packages. The issue with Debian style
> binNMU is that we only rebuild the binary: any packages that will have
> a different source version than the binary: all packages. 
> You just need to bump the version before rebuilding the packages and
> that's it. It is not different from rebuilding the packages after a
> minor change.

You're reiterating what I've said: binNMUs won't really work; updating the
source package version would be the more reasonable way to accomplish the
same goal (though there are definitely tradeoffs there as well, and I think
we have more important issues to tackle at this point).

> > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
> > though?  This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
> > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
> > much inclined to try to un-break it in this particular way, given that
> > it's non-trivial.
> 
> At least to avoid namespace conflict between Debian and Ubuntu .deb files.

That seems like an abstract goal; what actual problem would be solved?

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Bill Allombert]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number?  I don't.  I think you are
> arguing on abstract philosophical grounds rather than trying to solve a
> real problem.

The .deb control file itself does not include the Origin tag, so this only
work if you have Ubuntu in your source.list at the time you run apt-cache.
(and actually apt-cache show available packages attribute rather than
attribute of installed packages).

This is not particularly accurate nor robust.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ok, then I must have misunderstood something.  So it is clear then
> > that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
> 
> To clarify explicitly:
> 
> - Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
> - Most Ubuntu source packages are identical copies from Debian, while some 
> are modified for Ubuntu
> - All Ubuntu binary packages are built for Ubuntu in Ubuntu chroots
> 
> > When you recompile packages, change their version number just as
> > Debian does for binary-NMUs?  That is, the first binary compile for
> > an arch gets the same version number as the original source, but all
> > future recompilations, which would include those done by Ubuntu or
> > anyone else, should get a modified version number.
> 
> I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).  If it were
> essential to version the packages differently, I would say that the source
> package versions should be changed as well.  Bin-NMUs are more trouble than
> they are worth.

The Source-Version problem will not affect Ubuntu because they rebuild
both binary: all and binary: any packages. The issue with Debian style
binNMU is that we only rebuild the binary: any packages that will have
a different source version than the binary: all packages. 
You just need to bump the version before rebuilding the packages and
that's it. It is not different from rebuilding the packages after a
minor change.

> Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed, though?
> This is only an issue when mixing packages between different derivatives,
> which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very much inclined to
> try to un-break it in this particular way, given that it's non-trivial.

At least to avoid namespace conflict between Debian and Ubuntu .deb files.

Cheers,
Bill.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Christian Perrier wrote:
> 
> > It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
> > sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
> > suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
> > "distinguishing version numbers for binaries" being by far the least of
> > these).  "If you're not cooperating with me the way I want, I'll make you
> > regret it" doesn't benefit *anyone* involved.  Indeed, it just makes it
> > easier to conclude that Debian is no longer worth the effort of trying to
> > give back to.
> 
> Seconded.

Seconded too.

> I am amazed by the involvment made by Matt and a few other Ubuntu
> people in this thread. And I actually fear they could give up and lose
> what I personnally consider as good will.

Mee too as well. The only solution that I know is to discuss the matter in
a "smaller group" (like within Utnubu) and present the decision later 
to the larger group ... because people who join smaller group have a real
common interest while people flaming here are only eager to impose their
opinion on the project (since d-d is in theory the main discussion list of
the developers).

Cheers,

PS: Yes it's about time that we limit the number of email that a single
person can post on this list. Or impose a greater delay each time a new
mail comes. Or whatever, but we need to try something to avoid problems
like we had in the recent threads.
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Christian Perrier]

> It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
> sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
> suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
> "distinguishing version numbers for binaries" being by far the least of
> these).  "If you're not cooperating with me the way I want, I'll make you
> regret it" doesn't benefit *anyone* involved.  Indeed, it just makes it
> easier to conclude that Debian is no longer worth the effort of trying to
> give back to.

Seconded.

I am amazed by the involvment made by Matt and a few other Ubuntu
people in this thread. And I actually fear they could give up and lose
what I personnally consider as good will.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Miles Bader]

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number? 

Actually it seems fairly likely that they would -- version numbers are
_far_ more visible than other package meta-data.

I even know this from personal experience:  a while ago I played around
with mixing ubuntu and debian, and various "ubuntu" strings in the
version numbers were highly noticeable.

-Miles
-- 
We have met the enemy, and he is us.  -- Pogo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:21:06AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:

> [Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> > Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
> > every package to add an "ubuntu" tag, and then be done with it,
> > right?  That would work well and be very easy to implement.

> You are so hung up on this point, it's not even funny.

> Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
> apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
> "-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number?  I don't.  I think you are
> arguing on abstract philosophical grounds rather than trying to solve a
> real problem.

I think being able to uniquely identify a binary package by its version
number does have some value.  I don't think it's anywhere near so important
as to justify Thomas's strident objections.

> mdz is right when he says that we already discourage people from mixing
> packages from different distributions.  People still do it on occasion,
> but at some point there's little that can be done to stop it - short of
> making the .deb formats purposely incompatible so you *can't*
> cross-pollinate your box even if you try.  It seems to me that using a
> -ubuntu version suffix just to indicate "this package is compiled for
> Ubuntu" would accomplish approximately nothing.  It's busy work, and I
> hope the Ubuntu team don't ever feel so badgered by this thread to
> actually waste their time doing it.

It is the great danger of this thread that Matt et al. will feel
sufficiently put upon that they *don't* take to heart the legitimate
suggestions that could improve cooperation between Debian and Ubuntu (and
"distinguishing version numbers for binaries" being by far the least of
these).  "If you're not cooperating with me the way I want, I'll make you
regret it" doesn't benefit *anyone* involved.  Indeed, it just makes it
easier to conclude that Debian is no longer worth the effort of trying to
give back to.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Peter Samuelson]

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]
> Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
> every package to add an "ubuntu" tag, and then be done with it,
> right?  That would work well and be very easy to implement.

You are so hung up on this point, it's not even funny.

Do you really think users who fail to notice an "Origin" tag from
apt-cache, and believe they're above using reportbug, will notice an
"-ubuntuN" suffix in the version number?  I don't.  I think you are
arguing on abstract philosophical grounds rather than trying to solve a
real problem.

mdz is right when he says that we already discourage people from mixing
packages from different distributions.  People still do it on occasion,
but at some point there's little that can be done to stop it - short of
making the .deb formats purposely incompatible so you *can't*
cross-pollinate your box even if you try.  It seems to me that using a
-ubuntu version suffix just to indicate "this package is compiled for
Ubuntu" would accomplish approximately nothing.  It's busy work, and I
hope the Ubuntu team don't ever feel so badgered by this thread to
actually waste their time doing it.

A much larger problem, IMO, is the Ubuntu users who install Debian
packages which break due to the Ubuntu environment (like '/usr/bin/env
python' being 2.4) then complain to Debian and forget to mention that
they're using Ubuntu.  I don't think there's much that can be done
about those users either.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> mdz writes:
> > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> > which have not been verified on Debian...
> 
> I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
> fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not
> the bug is likely to be present in the corresponding Debian package.  If
> you are wrong once in a while it's hardly the end of the world.

The context of my statement was bugs, not patches.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
>> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
>> > which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).  
>
>> That's correct.  These are bugs, and should be reported and fixed.
>
> Which would be totally pointless until dpkg itself is fixed to give
> packagers an alternative to ${Source-Version}.

I thought we had a fix-strategy in place for addressing these cases.
I'm sorry if we don't; then of course this strategy doesn't work. :(

I am coming around to think that a simple change to the source package
version might always be a good idea; it certainly is harmless.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).  

> That's correct.  These are bugs, and should be reported and fixed.

Which would be totally pointless until dpkg itself is fixed to give
packagers an alternative to ${Source-Version}.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).  

That's correct.  These are bugs, and should be reported and fixed.

Since you don't do bin-NMU's, you could simply alter the version of
every package to add an "ubuntu" tag, and then be done with it, right?
That would work well and be very easy to implement.

> Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed, though?
> This is only an issue when mixing packages between different derivatives,
> which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very much inclined to
> try to un-break it in this particular way, given that it's non-trivial.

What is non-trivial?  Adding the version tag?  

You're populating the net with .debs which *look* just like the
official Debian ones, but *aren't*, and the result is that confusion
can happen.  I believe that someone has already posted about how this
confusion has come up in at least one case.

In addition, there are many times people have reported that the Debian
practice of changing version numbers for successive binNMU's has been
of great assistance in tracking down bugs.

>> Will you establish an Ubuntu policy that all bugs found, whether
>> patched or not, which might exist in the upstread Debian package,
>> should always be reported to the BTS?
>
> The "might" here is a problem.  It is considered to be in poor taste to
> report bugs to bugs.debian.org which have not been verified on Debian, and
> attempting to confirm every bug is not feasible for us (we can't even come
> close to confirming every bug on Ubuntu).

How about whenever you actually fix a bug then?  Or how about using
one's best judgment?

In any case, I want to note what has just happened here.  You received
a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful
contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely
non-controversial.

Your response was not to say "yes, great!" but rather to argue about
whether these are things Debian should care about, and protest that
they are not valuable and take too much work.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> mdz writes:
> > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> > which have not been verified on Debian...
> I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
> fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not
> the bug is likely to be present in the corresponding Debian package.

It's not quite that simple, since Ubuntu moves some of its core packages
ahead faster than Debian; so then the question is are "support python
2.4, gcc 4" patches appropriate for Debian or not? They might not be
/now/, but they will be in future -- so is filing the bug now an annoying
distraction and thus bad, or a helpful contribution to ease future bumps
in the road, and thus good? I assume the "brief note, link to a patch"
was a compromise to handle those sorts of problems, though I think that
a wishlist bug with a full patch (and possibly a usertag to group them
together) is a better idea.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
> > > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
> >
> > It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary NMU, but developers
> > do not need wanna-build access to that. Instead, they upload a new
> > .dsc and .diff.gz, which gets accepted by katie as new package upload.
> >
> > These kind of uploads are necessary during transitions, e.g. when a
> > package has been built against an older library but needs to be
> > rebuilt with an newer one.
>
> Not sure what your first "It" refers to.  When there's a library
> transition, does the package get a new version in Ubuntu like it
> would in Debian?

That depends. If there are any changes outside from debian/changelog
needed to get the package built on the buildds, then we have to
introduce the 'ubuntuX' suffix in the version string. The point of
this is to prevent autosyncs when the next version in debian appears.
If no changes are necessary, then a 'buildX' suffix is appended if and
only if there is no 'ubuntuX' suffix yet. The advantage in this case
is that the package will be autosynced on the next debian upload. (if
there already is an 'ubuntu' suffix, it is just increased, in that
case, we don't want autosyncs anyway).

> If yes, why do some Ubuntu packages have the
> same version as Debian when Ubuntu is using different libraries
> than Debian?

Ubuntu source packages which have the same version number as the
debian sourcepackage are identical (i.e. have the same md5 sums) [0].
Since every ubuntu binary package is built in ubuntu chroots it does
happen that the binary package ends with different binary dependencies
than it would have in a debian chroot.

Does this answer your question?

[0] There is a cornercase when ubuntu introduced a new upstream
version before debian did and the debian maintainer uploads an
orig.tar.gz with an different md5 sum. This is a situation which
really should be avoided wherever possible (and is very seldom
anyway).

--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[John Hasler]

mdz writes:
> It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org
> which have not been verified on Debian...

I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that
fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not
the bug is likely to be present in the corresponding Debian package.  If
you are wrong once in a while it's hardly the end of the world.

-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, then I must have misunderstood something.  So it is clear then
> that Ubuntu does recompile every package.

To clarify explicitly:

- Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
- Most Ubuntu source packages are identical copies from Debian, while some are 
modified for Ubuntu
- All Ubuntu binary packages are built for Ubuntu in Ubuntu chroots

> When you recompile packages, change their version number just as
> Debian does for binary-NMUs?  That is, the first binary compile for
> an arch gets the same version number as the original source, but all
> future recompilations, which would include those done by Ubuntu or
> anyone else, should get a modified version number.

I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs).  If it were
essential to version the packages differently, I would say that the source
package versions should be changed as well.  Bin-NMUs are more trouble than
they are worth.

Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed, though?
This is only an issue when mixing packages between different derivatives,
which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very much inclined to
try to un-break it in this particular way, given that it's non-trivial.

> Will you establish an Ubuntu policy that all bugs found, whether
> patched or not, which might exist in the upstread Debian package,
> should always be reported to the BTS?

The "might" here is a problem.  It is considered to be in poor taste to
report bugs to bugs.debian.org which have not been verified on Debian, and
attempting to confirm every bug is not feasible for us (we can't even come
close to confirming every bug on Ubuntu).

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
>> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
>> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
>> > of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
>> > package built on debian systems.
>> 
>> Good grief, and Matt Zimmerman said the exact opposite recently,
>> saying that Ubuntu does not rebuild every package.
>
> I said no such thing, and would appreciate your retraction on this point.

Ok, then I must have misunderstood something.  So it is clear then
that Ubuntu does recompile every package.

Now, can you do the following, which I don't think there is any
diversity of opinion about:

When you recompile packages, change their version number just as
Debian does for binary-NMUs?  That is, the first binary compile for
an arch gets the same version number as the original source, but all
future recompilations, which would include those done by Ubuntu or
anyone else, should get a modified version number.

Will you establish an Ubuntu policy that all bugs found, whether
patched or not, which might exist in the upstread Debian package,
should always be reported to the BTS?

I believe there has been no disagreement about these points from the
Debian perspective.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> > of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
> > package built on debian systems.
> 
> Good grief, and Matt Zimmerman said the exact opposite recently,
> saying that Ubuntu does not rebuild every package.

I said no such thing, and would appreciate your retraction on this point.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Mike Bird]

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 11:04, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
> > other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?
> 
> It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary NMU, but developers
> do not need wanna-build access to that. Instead, they upload a new
> .dsc and .diff.gz, which gets accepted by katie as new package upload.
> 
> These kind of uploads are necessary during transitions, e.g. when a
> package has been built against an older library but needs to be
> rebuilt with an newer one.

Not sure what your first "It" refers to.  When there's a library
transition, does the package get a new version in Ubuntu like it
would in Debian?  If yes, why do some Ubuntu packages have the
same version as Debian when Ubuntu is using different libraries
than Debian?

--Mike Bird


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/18/06, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> > of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
> > package built on debian systems.
>
> Ubuntu does NOT set the origin in its packages:
>
> # dpkg -s dpkg | egrep -i '(origin|version):'
> Origin: debian
> Version: 1.13.10ubuntu4
> #
>
> apt can be a useful tool but it tells you where it knows a package
> can be found, not the actual origin of an installed package:
>
> # dpkg -i --force-all xli_1.17.0-18sarge1_i386.deb
> (snip)
> # apt-cache show xli | grep -i origin:
> Origin: Ubuntu
> #

I think this is something we can work on or have changed. I only
checked the output of apt-cache. I think apt-cache however, is the
most common case for user who want to know about a package, but
anyhow..

> > If I understand your proposal correctly, you propose to introduce
> > binNMU like versioning on ALL nondiverged packages (again, the source
> > package is identical!). This seem not feasible because of practical
> > problems.
>
> What practical problems?  DDs can increment the two-dot version
> on a binary NMU.  Why can't Ubuntu's copy-sources-from-debian
> script do the same?

requesting binNMUs requires access to wanna-build, AFAIK. Humble
ubuntu developers do not have access to that, just uploads. We can
talk about uploading policy. I ask to be corrected if I'm wrong on
this point.

> > btw, the 'buildX' packages do change the source package, but by
> > policy, only debian/changelog is touched, to increase the version
> > number of the package.
>
> What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
> other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?

It is quite similar to what debian calls a binary NMU, but developers
do not need wanna-build access to that. Instead, they upload a new
.dsc and .diff.gz, which gets accepted by katie as new package upload.

These kind of uploads are necessary during transitions, e.g. when a
package has been built against an older library but needs to be
rebuilt with an newer one.

--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
> interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
> And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
> with Ubuntu, then you can be sure that you won't get what you want.

I would be happy with either of two alternatives:

* Ubuntu changes its practices to actually start cooperating with
  Debian.

* Ubuntu stops claiming it is cooperating with Debian.

What Matt wants to do, as judged by his actual behavior, is to claim
he is cooperating with Debian, and then disregard what Debian has
actually said, repeatedly, would constitution cooperation.

The most important things are:

* Proper use of the BTS to file bug reports and patches back.
* Proper use of the Maintainer field to indicate the individual
  responsible for the package and able to make changes.

And now, a third has entered my radar screen because it never occurred
to me that Ubuntu was so seriously screwing this one up:

* Proper changing of package version numbers when Ubuntu rebuilds
  packages.

Matt has argued that some people disagree with the exact parameters of
the second of these three.  And, on the basis of that disagreement, he
does nothing about it at all, and ignores the first and third.

If he wanted to demonstrate good faith, he would have required
Debian-relevant Ubuntu changes to be reported to the BTS long ago.
There has never been disagreement within Debian about this, and if he
actually meant "I want to do the right thing, but you all can't
agree", then he would do the right thing *now* for the cases where
there is straightforward agreement.

The fact that he has not done so convinces me that he is not really
interested in cooperating with Debian.  But he *is* interested in
appearing to cooperate with Debian.

Thomas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>>
>> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
>> dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers
>> regarding Ubuntu practices.
>>
>> Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior.
>
> What BSG writes is the feeling I'm getting from you as well.  This is not 
> Planet Ubuntu, Debian doesn't exist purely to source Ubuntu.  I'm personally 
> tired of the attitude from Ubuntu users and developers alike that this is 
> Planet Ubuntu.

My name is "Thomas", not "BSG".  Sorry for the confusion.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
> package built on debian systems.

Good grief, and Matt Zimmerman said the exact opposite recently,
saying that Ubuntu does not rebuild every package.  I have no idea
which is correct, but your statement matches what I have been told
before Matt said this recently.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Brian Nelson]

Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
>> > is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
>> > binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
>> > can caus different dependencies on the resulting binary package.
>>
>> Yes, this is the definition of a no changes rebuild-only upload.
>>
>> What I asked was precisely that such upload should be versionned
>> nevertheless. Debian version binNMU even while there is no source
>> changes.
>
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
> package built on debian systems.
>
> If I understand your proposal correctly, you propose to introduce
> binNMU like versioning on ALL nondiverged packages (again, the source
> package is identical!). This seem not feasible because of practical
> problems.

What exactly are these practical problems?  I don't see how Ubuntu had
no problem solving the problem of rebuilding *all* Debian packages, but
can't automate making some simple changes to the package before the
build.

-- 
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Mike Bird]

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 05:29, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
> debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
> rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
> of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
> package built on debian systems.

Ubuntu does NOT set the origin in its packages:

# dpkg -s dpkg | egrep -i '(origin|version):'
Origin: debian
Version: 1.13.10ubuntu4
#

apt can be a useful tool but it tells you where it knows a package
can be found, not the actual origin of an installed package:

# dpkg -i --force-all xli_1.17.0-18sarge1_i386.deb
(snip)
# apt-cache show xli | grep -i origin:
Origin: Ubuntu
#

> If I understand your proposal correctly, you propose to introduce
> binNMU like versioning on ALL nondiverged packages (again, the source
> package is identical!). This seem not feasible because of practical
> problems.

What practical problems?  DDs can increment the two-dot version
on a binary NMU.  Why can't Ubuntu's copy-sources-from-debian
script do the same?

> btw, the 'buildX' packages do change the source package, but by
> policy, only debian/changelog is touched, to increase the version
> number of the package.

What please is the difference between a buildX package and all the
other packages that were rebuilt without the buildX annotation?

--Mike Bird


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
> > is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
> > binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
> > can caus different dependencies on the resulting binary package.
>
> Yes, this is the definition of a no changes rebuild-only upload.
>
> What I asked was precisely that such upload should be versionned
> nevertheless. Debian version binNMU even while there is no source
> changes.

Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from
debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being
rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output
of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a
package built on debian systems.

If I understand your proposal correctly, you propose to introduce
binNMU like versioning on ALL nondiverged packages (again, the source
package is identical!). This seem not feasible because of practical
problems.

btw, the 'buildX' packages do change the source package, but by
policy, only debian/changelog is touched, to increase the version
number of the package.

--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Peter Mathiasson]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> > > > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> > > > contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
> > > > different dependencies and bugs.
> > >
> > > In ubuntu, no changes rebuild-only get the suffix 'buildX' or
> > > 'ubuntuX+1', depending if it has already diverged. Packages with
> > > 'buildX' suffix get synced automatically on the next upload to debian.
> >
> > Are you sure ? Compare the menu package at
> > 
> > with the one in sid. They have the same versions (2.1.27) but not the
> > same content (at least the dependencies are different.)
> > No buildX or ubuntuX suffix.
> 
> As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
> is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
> binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
> can caus different dependencies on the resulting binary package.

You said that "no changes rebuild-only get the suffix 'buildX'".
This is, apparently, not true.

-- 
Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu
GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:06:19PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> > > > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> > > > contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
> > > > different dependencies and bugs.
> > >
> > > In ubuntu, no changes rebuild-only get the suffix 'buildX' or
> > > 'ubuntuX+1', depending if it has already diverged. Packages with
> > > 'buildX' suffix get synced automatically on the next upload to debian.
> >
> > Are you sure ? Compare the menu package at
> > 
> > with the one in sid. They have the same versions (2.1.27) but not the
> > same content (at least the dependencies are different.)
> > No buildX or ubuntuX suffix.
> 
> As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
> is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
> binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
> can caus different dependencies on the resulting binary package.

Yes, this is the definition of a no changes rebuild-only upload.

What I asked was precisely that such upload should be versionned
nevertheless. Debian version binNMU even while there is no source
changes.

Cheers,
Bill.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/18/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> > > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> > > contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
> > > different dependencies and bugs.
> >
> > In ubuntu, no changes rebuild-only get the suffix 'buildX' or
> > 'ubuntuX+1', depending if it has already diverged. Packages with
> > 'buildX' suffix get synced automatically on the next upload to debian.
>
> Are you sure ? Compare the menu package at
> 
> with the one in sid. They have the same versions (2.1.27) but not the
> same content (at least the dependencies are different.)
> No buildX or ubuntuX suffix.

As pointed out several times, the source package in the ubuntu archive
is NOT different to the source package in the debian archive. The
binary package have been rebuilt in an different environment, which
can caus different dependencies on the resulting binary package.

> > > 3) The name of the Ubuntu developers which have tested the package
> > > before uploading it is not mentionned in the case of a no-changes
> > > upload. I am refraining from assuming there were none.
> >
> > It is in debian/changelog.
>
> Grab the package at the URL above abnd check the changelog: no mention
> of any Ubuntu developers.

output of apt-cache on my system:

>> apt-cache show menu
Package: menu
Priority: optional
Section: universe/admin
Installed-Size: 1532
Maintainer: Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Architecture: i386
Version: 2.1.27
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.4-1), libgcc1 (>= 1:4.0.2), libstdc++6 (>=
4.0.2-4), dpkg (>= 1.10)
Suggests: gksu | kdebase-bin | sux
Filename: pool/universe/m/menu/menu_2.1.27_i386.deb
Size: 376506
MD5sum: 054648b9fdc883b1a09e48dd3346e824
Description: generates programs menu for all menu-aware applications
 Debian menu keeps transparently the menus in the different
 window-managers in sync with the list of installed programs.
 .
 Debian menu relies on a list of menu entries provided by programs
 and a list of menu-methods provided by window-managers and other
 menu-aware applications.
 .
 Menu provides system-level and user-level configuration and overrides
 for both menu entries and menu-methods.
Bugs: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Origin: Ubuntu


As you can see, there has been a Bugs: and an Origin: Field added.
Some debian developers have raised the opinion that this is not
enough, and the Maintainer field should be mangled during the build
process. As there seems to be no consensus on this issue yet, this is
not done yet, but would be possible, AFAIU. But there should be really
a consensus on this since we don't want to have this discussion over
and over again.

--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Bill Allombert]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:47:35AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> > do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> > contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
> > different dependencies and bugs.
> 
> In ubuntu, no changes rebuild-only get the suffix 'buildX' or
> 'ubuntuX+1', depending if it has already diverged. Packages with
> 'buildX' suffix get synced automatically on the next upload to debian.

Are you sure ? Compare the menu package at

with the one in sid. They have the same versions (2.1.27) but not the
same content (at least the dependencies are different.) 
No buildX or ubuntuX suffix.

> > 2) I find a bit odd to be called the maintainer of a package I did not
> > test and that I cannot change anyway.
> 
> Ubuntu has a different understanding of the maintainer field of a package.

Wonderful.

> > 3) The name of the Ubuntu developers which have tested the package
> > before uploading it is not mentionned in the case of a no-changes
> > upload. I am refraining from assuming there were none.
> 
> It is in debian/changelog.

Grab the package at the URL above abnd check the changelog: no mention
of any Ubuntu developers.

Cheers,
Bill.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Reinhard Tartler]

On 1/17/06, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
> do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
> contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
> different dependencies and bugs.

In ubuntu, no changes rebuild-only get the suffix 'buildX' or
'ubuntuX+1', depending if it has already diverged. Packages with
'buildX' suffix get synced automatically on the next upload to debian.

> 2) I find a bit odd to be called the maintainer of a package I did not
> test and that I cannot change anyway.

Ubuntu has a different understanding of the maintainer field of a package.

> 3) The name of the Ubuntu developers which have tested the package
> before uploading it is not mentionned in the case of a no-changes
> upload. I am refraining from assuming there were none.

It is in debian/changelog.


--
regards,
Reinhard

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
> >> > honest.
> >> 
> >> Then, um, don't.  Doesn't affect me either way.
> >
> > Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time
> > while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian
> > developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see
> > something positive come out of this long and painful thread.
> 
> I do care about the topic.  I do not care about Matt's ego.

I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be
interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy.
And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor
with Ubuntu, then you can be sure that you won't get what you want.

And what's interesting is the actual result, not the discussion itself !
(Or reworded: avoid flames if you want a positive outcome, otherwise it
would look like you're only interesed in the confrontation)

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Paul Johnson]

On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>
> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
> dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers
> regarding Ubuntu practices.
>
> Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior.

What BSG writes is the feeling I'm getting from you as well.  This is not 
Planet Ubuntu, Debian doesn't exist purely to source Ubuntu.  I'm personally 
tired of the attitude from Ubuntu users and developers alike that this is 
Planet Ubuntu.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Got Jabber?  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


pgpFMwVfN7DAX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me.  It is
>> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
>> > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
>> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
>> > honest.
>> 
>> Then, um, don't.  Doesn't affect me either way.
>
> Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time
> while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian
> developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see
> something positive come out of this long and painful thread.

I do care about the topic.  I do not care about Matt's ego.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[David Nusinow]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me.  It is
> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
> > honest.
> 
> Then, um, don't.  Doesn't affect me either way.

Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time
while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian
developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see
something positive come out of this long and painful thread.

 - David Nusinow


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Personally, I'd suggest:
> >  * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
> Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
> them.  What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from
> discussion among developers, 

Well, you're not going to get one when you're too busy telling us everything
we suggest is wrong. All I can imagine you doing is encouraging people to even
more firmly want nothing to do with Ubuntu.

> or an official decision from a position of
> authority.  Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please
> individuals with conflicting opinions.

If you're trying to do the right and best thing, we've got something to talk
about. But asking for "official decisions from a position of authority" looks
more like a way of finding someone else for people to blame.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me.  It is
> > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
> > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
> > honest.
> 
> Then, um, don't.  Doesn't affect me either way.

Done.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me.  It is
> costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
> and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
> I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
> honest.

Then, um, don't.  Doesn't affect me either way.

>> You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
>
> This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
> dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers
> regarding Ubuntu practices.

Can you describe the cases in which you have altered your practices in
response to the views of Debian developers?

I refer not to technical decisions or particular patches, but rather,
things on the level of policy and overall structure.  As far as I can
tell, you have not done any such.  This makes it seem unlikely that
you really are willing to entertain such changes.  Perhaps, though, I
have missed.

You have attempted to convince Debian that what you are doing is
already cooperation, but that is not the same thing as a serious
interest in what Debian would like.  Instead, you have tried to
convince us that what you are providing is what we should like.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you
> > attribute malicious intent.  
> 
> Um, I have said nothing about your intent.
> 
> I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs.

If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me.  It is
costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue,
and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you.
I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be
honest.

> You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.

This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated
dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers
regarding Ubuntu practices.

Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
>> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
>> > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
>> > this subject.
>> 
>> Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost
>> everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is
>> not absolute unanimity on the alternative.
>
> That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you
> attribute malicious intent.  

Um, I have said nothing about your intent.

I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs.

> What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the
> appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do.  

Right, because you are now interested in scalability.  If you were
*really* interested in scalability, then you wouldn't adopt the
wonderful "hey, all the patches are on our website, come and get 'em!"
approach.  

You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like.
Which is *fine*, you don't need to.  But then, geez, stop pretending
you are a great cooperator with Debian.

> In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and
> accusatory.  There's simply no cause for it.  The most productive
> thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from
> last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions
> therein.

Do what has *already been suggested*.  You need to be using different
version numbers *anyway* if you are recompiling the packages.  So
given that you are doing that (right?!) it is no trouble to adjust the
fields.

> Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues
> entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to
> collect information?  Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to
> piss you off?

I didn't say you want to piss anyone off.  What I said was that what
you are doing is having that effect.  I think it's a reaction you wish
didn't happen, but not so much that you are willing to change Ubuntu's
practices.

>> Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is
>> right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too.
>
> Nonsense.  What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is
> consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no
> relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual.  Please read the previous
> threads on this subject.

No, you are distributing packages with incorrect Maintainer fields.

That's not "inaction", it's a specific action.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Josselin Mouette]

Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 12:46 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit :
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 
> > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > > without any luck:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html
> 
> Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they
> upload to Debian.  The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
> file.
> 
> Ubuntu should do something similiar.  Set the Maintainer field to someone from
> their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place).

Even better, they could stop crediting themselves for changes initiated
by Debian developers.

http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news/2005-December/33.html
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
> > this subject.
> 
> Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost
> everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is
> not absolute unanimity on the alternative.

That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you
attribute malicious intent.  What I am doing is asking the Debian community
for opinions on the appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do.  In
response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and accusatory.
There's simply no cause for it.  The most productive thing you could do in
this situation would be to read my mail from last May and (politely and
thoughtfully) answer the questions therein.

Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues
entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to
collect information?  Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to
piss you off?

> Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is
> right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too.

Nonsense.  What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is
consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no
relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual.  Please read the previous
threads on this subject.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Bill Allombert]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.
> 
> Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> > Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> > suitable for release with my name on it.
> 
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:

Well, there some points where I have voiced my opinion to some Ubuntu
developers rather than here. I did not know debian-devel was the correct
place to send that.

1) No changes rebuild-only upload should still be versionned so that we
do not end up with two .deb with the same version but different
contents. Rebuilding a package with a newer toolchain can cause
different dependencies and bugs.

2) I find a bit odd to be called the maintainer of a package I did not
test and that I cannot change anyway.

3) The name of the Ubuntu developers which have tested the package
before uploading it is not mentionned in the case of a no-changes
upload. I am refraining from assuming there were none.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
> agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
> derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
> this subject.

Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost
everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is
not absolute unanimity on the alternative.

Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is
right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:01:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> [snip]
> > There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
> > there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on
> > behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other
> > organizations can respond to it with confidence.  If a consensus can't be
> > reached informally, that's what I think we will need.
> 
> Why would Debian need to take an official position on behalf of its
> members?  Yes, I can see that it would be in Ubuntu's best interest
> for Debian to do so, but since it's obvious from this discussion that
> different Debian developers have different opinions on this issue,
> it's clearly not in Debian's best interest.

In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an
agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian
derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on
this subject.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Joey Hess]

Joey Hess wrote:
> FYI, I refuse to allow the fact that my code happens to be present in 
> a currently perceived as high profile distribution to hold my time
> hostage. I've never done it before with other high profile distributions
> (Corel's mangling of alien comes to mind), and I won't start now. The
> correct action in these circumstances is a sufficiently evolved
> killfile.
> 
> Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> suitable for release with my name on it.

FWIW, the "with my name on it" was the least significant bit of the
above message although it seems to be the only bit anyone paid attention
to. I have killfiles; I cannot stop people from releasing software with
my name on it; it's not a big deal. But don't expect me to do your QA or
maintenance for you if you do so. The parent message was an attempt to
get Debian developers to take on that responsibility for software
outside Debian, and this Debian developer will not do that.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Adam Heath]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote:

> > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > without any luck:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html

Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they
upload to Debian.  The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright
file.

Ubuntu should do something similiar.  Set the Maintainer field to someone from
their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place).


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Stephen Frost]

* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >  * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
> >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
> >same
> 
> Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
> them.  What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from
> discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of
> authority.  Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please
> individuals with conflicting opinions.

Maybe I missed something, but has someone actually said they'd be
unhappy if the Maintainer: field was an appropriate Ubuntu person?

Some might be alright with leaving Maintainer alone if the package
hasn't been changed, some might be alright with leaving it the same even
if the package has been changed and some might always want it changed,
I don't expect you'll get a concensus on that.  I'd be suprised if
someone was actually unhappy with the Maintainer field changing though.
Of course, don't submit a patch back to Debian which includes changing
the Maintainer field.

> >  * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even
> >when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner
> 
> I don't see how this would help.  If we were to institute a policy (or more
> likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the
> maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on
> the process.  What did you have in mind here?

It's similar to my comment above- set the maintainer to an appropriate
Ubuntu person, which would naturally be the Ubuntu package maintainer,
who might also be the Debian package maintainer.  Really, though, this
isn't a Debian concern or problem- if the Ubuntu developers are
complaining about an automated Maintainer-changing script then that's an
issue Ubuntu needs to deal with and figure a way around, or just ignore.
It's certainly not an excuse to leave the Maintainer field alone.

Thanks,

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Adam Heath]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:

> Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> suitable for release with my name on it.

Then how would d-i+debconf have gotten some of the enhancments that you
yourself have blogged about?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
[snip]
> There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
> there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on
> behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other
> organizations can respond to it with confidence.  If a consensus can't be
> reached informally, that's what I think we will need.

Why would Debian need to take an official position on behalf of its
members?  Yes, I can see that it would be in Ubuntu's best interest
for Debian to do so, but since it's obvious from this discussion that
different Debian developers have different opinions on this issue,
it's clearly not in Debian's best interest.


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window   (\
//  ~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Beautiful hoar-frost   (/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
[...]
> This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we
> really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) in
> apt-get, apt-cache and co to disable/mangling the Maintainer field of
> packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less
> intrusive approach? 

How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?

As Ubuntu recompiles all Debian packages anyway, this would only require
a (fairly minor) patch to dpkg-gencontrol.

This would make it crystal clear that Debian's packages in Ubuntu are
maintained by Ubuntu people, while you're not dropping the credit for
the Debian maintainer who's put in a lot of work; and for packages that
have not seen any Ubuntu-specific patches, you could leave out the
Ubuntu-Maintainer field (while still renaming the Maintainer field to
Debian-Maintainer).

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:58:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> > without any luck:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html
> 
> That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions
> on this matter.

I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on
a Debian mailing list.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do.
> 
> Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory.

There was a lot of discussion, much of which took place without
a clear understanding of the technical issues involved.  I attempted to
summarize those and present the questions in a clear and unequivocally
answerable fashion, and I did not in fact receive a single answer.  Now,
eight months later, some of the same discussions are being rehashed without
considering the issues and questions that I put forth in that summary
message.

> Personally, I'd suggest:
> 
>  * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
>with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
>same

Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to
them.  What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from
discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of
authority.  Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please
individuals with conflicting opinions.

>  * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the
>appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as
>to the source you pulled from
> 
>  * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the
>MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file

These two are equivalent, so we don't need to treat main and universe
separately.

>  * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even
>when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner

I don't see how this would help.  If we were to institute a policy (or more
likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the
maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on
the process.  What did you have in mind here?

>  * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit
>the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to
>bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream.

Let's not conflate these entirely separate issues.

> > I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time
> > frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for
> > all.
> 
> It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with "once and for all"
> IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago.

There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these,
there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on
behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other
organizations can respond to it with confidence.  If a consensus can't be
reached informally, that's what I think we will need.

-- 
 - mdz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Mike Hommey]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns 
 wrote:
>  * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit
>the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to
>bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream.

s/or/and/.

There's no reason that should prevent the ubuntu maintainer to forward
his patch to upstream AND debian.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Steffen Moeller]

Am Dienstag 17 Januar 2006 11:07 schrieb Reinhard Tartler:
> Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> > Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> > Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> > suitable for release with my name on it.
>
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html
>
> There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do.
> There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the
> maintainer field and some who don't want that. You are now making a
> request to not release binary packages with your name on it. I assume
> this does not include source packages as well, just binary packages.
>
> This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we
> really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) in
> apt-get, apt-cache and co to disable/mangling the Maintainer field of
> packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less
> intrusive approach?
>
> I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time
> frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for
> all.

How about placing the Ubuntu-Maintainer as the official maintainer to whom bug 
reports etc would then be sent from Ubuntu users. As a reference to the 
original packaging work something like "Debian-Maintainer" field could be 
added. Whoever uploads a Debian package to Ubuntu should as the maintainer of 
the Debian package if they want to act as the official Ubuntun maintainer, 
too. I do not expect too many to say "no" if there is little overhead.

Any investigation of bug reports that would require the installation of Ubuntu 
are not feasible for Debian maintainers. At the same time I would be 
disappointed if the BTS of Debian would not be shared between the 
distributions. Sigh. If the Ubuntu and the Debian developer are not the same 
person then they should work together at least, hey, they share some 
considerable interests. If both were DD, then both could be uploaders.

People working at the core of Debian like Joey will have the one or other 
problem, but the normalo DD (or the normal member of the nm 
queue) I expect to experience very little issues since there 
is far too much and too diverse work out there and comparatively little 
reason to fight over it.

Steffen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Adeodato Simó]

* Reinhard Tartler [Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:07:40 +0100]:

> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html

  Yah, zero luck:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00077.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00080.html

-- 
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer  adeodato at debian.org
 
And don't get me wrong - I don't mind getting proven wrong. I change my
opinions the way some people change underwear. And I think that's ok.
-- Linus Torvalds


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.

(-project is for discussion about the project, not for "project wide"
stuff; dunno if this fits that)

> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html

> There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do.

Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory.

> There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the
> maintainer field and some who don't want that.

FWIW, I haven't seen the ones who do want their name in the maintainer
field.

> This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we
> really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?)

Personally, I'd suggest:

 * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly
   with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the
   same

 * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the
   appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as
   to the source you pulled from

 * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the
   MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file

 * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even
   when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner

 * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit
   the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to
   bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream.

That seems like it makes things fairly simple for you guys (no changes
in the normal case, tweaking debian/control and debian/copyright when
changes are needed), provides appropriate credit to debian maintainers,
and provides a fairly simple and effective way of getting changes
incorporated back in.

> I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time
> frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for
> all.

It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with "once and for all"
IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
> for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
> without any luck:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html

That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions
on this matter.

> packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less
> intrusive approach? 

IMHO a "if, and only if we modify it, we upload it with our name in
changelog and uploaders field" rule would be quite a good compromise.  But
that's my personal opinion, of course.

-- 
  "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: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Reinhard Tartler]

CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion.

Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess:
> Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
> Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
> suitable for release with my name on it.

What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice
for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field
without any luck:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html

There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do.
There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the
maintainer field and some who don't want that. You are now making a
request to not release binary packages with your name on it. I assume
this does not include source packages as well, just binary packages. 

This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we
really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) in
apt-get, apt-cache and co to disable/mangling the Maintainer field of
packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less
intrusive approach? 

I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time
frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for
all.


-- 
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Joey Hess]

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
> upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
> it much because I know I will do it in time for etch... however I may be
> interested to have that better version in Ubuntu as well instead of the
> actual version (which may be too buggy in my opinion).

On second read, this is also quite disrespectful of fellow DDs and users
who run Debian unstable (or testing) and who would be stuck with said
buggy software.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Joey Hess]

Matthew Palmer wrote:
> It's a hell of a lot better than having useless crap with your
> name on it in a stable release of something as high profile as Ubuntu,
> though.

FYI, I refuse to allow the fact that my code happens to be present in 
a currently perceived as high profile distribution to hold my time
hostage. I've never done it before with other high profile distributions
(Corel's mangling of alien comes to mind), and I won't start now. The
correct action in these circumstances is a sufficiently evolved
killfile.

Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in
Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not
suitable for release with my name on it.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Joey Hess]

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
> upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
> it much because I know I will do it in time for etch...

I think that nearly anyone on the release team will tell you that this
is a false time optimisation. The general result is the delay of stable
releases.

It also doesn't take into account things like d-i beta releases, which
include a snapshot of all of Debian testing by way of the CD/DVD images.
(And which have never been pre-announced on d-d-a, FWIW).

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Matthew Palmer]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hello Joey,
> 
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
> > is this:
> > 
> > Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > If you have some uploads pending, and would like to see those packages
> > > included [...]
> > 
> > > If for whatever reason you don't want to upload the new package to Debian
> > > directly [...]
> > 
> > This seems to assume that 
> > 
> > a) There might be a lot of Debian developers who have some upload ready
> >to go but are sitting on them for some reason.
> 
> Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
> upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
> it much because I know I will do it in time for etch... however I may be
> interested to have that better version in Ubuntu as well instead of the
> actual version (which may be too buggy in my opinion). If I don't know
> about the Ubuntu freeze, I may miss the opportunity to work on it in time...

Personally, I think that Debian maintainers need to be a bit more proactive
about filing faux-serious "keep this out of testing" bugs (and requesting
removals from testing in the meantime), and Ubuntu needs to track this
activity to work out what stuff the Debian maintainer thinks is going to
suck if it ends up in the next Ubuntu release.

Until this utopia occurs, however, I've taken the liberty of requesting
removal of non-release-worthy packages for the next Ubuntu release.  E-mail
ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com (it's probably subscriber-only, though, which
makes it a bad choice for communications with the MOTUs by outsiders,
unfortunately) and make the request.

To be fair to the MOTUs, it's probably best to do this fairly quickly once
you realise that the current version is bong and you can't fix it quickly,
as (according to a senior Ubuntu person) MOTUs are supposed to be fixing
major bugs in Debian packages anyway, so if they know up-front that
something is broken, and they're doing their job, they can fix it or remove
it, at their choice.  Asking for removal now doesn't give the MOTUs much
time to fix.  It's a hell of a lot better than having useless crap with your
name on it in a stable release of something as high profile as Ubuntu,
though.

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Raphael Hertzog]

Hello Joey,

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Joey Hess wrote:
> Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
> is this:
> 
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > If you have some uploads pending, and would like to see those packages
> > included [...]
> 
> > If for whatever reason you don't want to upload the new package to Debian
> > directly [...]
> 
> This seems to assume that 
> 
> a) There might be a lot of Debian developers who have some upload ready
>to go but are sitting on them for some reason.

Not really... it happens quite often that I plan on working on a new
upstream version (or whatever) but for various reasons, I do not prioritze
it much because I know I will do it in time for etch... however I may be
interested to have that better version in Ubuntu as well instead of the
actual version (which may be too buggy in my opinion). If I don't know
about the Ubuntu freeze, I may miss the opportunity to work on it in time...

> b) There might be a lot of Debian developers who are more interested in
>contributing to other distributions rather than Debian, or who don't
>know how to upload to experimental or something.

I can only imagine that it may be interesting in some particular cases,
for example when Ubuntu has already done a transition that Debian hasn't
and where we know that the packages in Ubuntu and in Debian can't be the
same.

> What I don't understand is why you'd think that either group is large
> enough to warrant a post to d-d-a. Do Debian developers habitually delay
> uploading packages that are ready to go? Is there some reason why Debian
> developers who are no longer interested in contributing to Debian
> shouldn't be shown the door?

I hope I have better explained why I thought it was relevant.

BTW, I'll take the opportunity of your mail (which is the only
public response which is actually constructive) to give some facts and
conclusion about this announce :
- I received 2 private emails saying that this should have gone to -devel
- I received 3 private emails thanking me for the announce and the effort I do
to favor the cooperation between Ubuntu and Debian
- of course, there have been lots of discussion on IRC and on the list
- there's the stupid mail to d-d-a from Andrew Suffield (which should be
  tought how to reply by private email to simply tell me that this should
  have gone to -devel (like others have done))

I won't reuse d-d-a for this purpose and I'll ask Lucas Nussbaum (who
asked me to forward this announce) to publish those himself directly on
-devel in the future (he has been subscribed for a long time).

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Bill Allombert]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 10:27:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
> 
> > Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share the
> > values that found Debian.
> 
> That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it?  Does this mean that

Why ? Ubuntu never claimed to be part of the Debian world.

> the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical excellence
> alone, without sharing Debian's "founding values", are not part of the
> "Debian world"? 

I would be surprised to see such users claiming to be part of the Debian
world, and anyway our standards are only relevant to distributions.

>   For that matter, I don't know of any derivative Debian
> distributions that require their developers to agree to the social contract;
> so by that standard, are *any* of them part of the "Debian world"?

I think at least the Custom Debian distributions qualify at least in intent.

Anyway, this question would be better answered by Raphael, since he is the
one who invented very publicly the expression 'part of the Debian world'. 

Cheers,
Bill.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Joey Hess]

Leaving ubuntu out of this, what puzzles me about your message, Raphael,
is this:

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> If you have some uploads pending, and would like to see those packages
> included [...]

> If for whatever reason you don't want to upload the new package to Debian
> directly [...]

This seems to assume that 

a) There might be a lot of Debian developers who have some upload ready
   to go but are sitting on them for some reason.
b) There might be a lot of Debian developers who are more interested in
   contributing to other distributions rather than Debian, or who don't
   know how to upload to experimental or something.

What I don't understand is why you'd think that either group is large
enough to warrant a post to d-d-a. Do Debian developers habitually delay
uploading packages that are ready to go? Is there some reason why Debian
developers who are no longer interested in contributing to Debian
shouldn't be shown the door?

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:26:36AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> > That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it?  Does this mean
> > that the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical
> > excellence alone, without sharing Debian's "founding values", are
> > not part of the "Debian world"?  For that matter, I don't know of
> > any derivative Debian distributions that require their developers to
> > agree to the social contract; so by that standard, are *any* of them
> > part of the "Debian world"?

> The context here is whether announcements from such groups
>  are on topic on d-d-a. I have a local LUG where lots of people use
>  Debian -- and there are debian based install fests and so on (and
>  talks, and BOF meetings over beer and pizza). I am not sure I think
>  gating the announcements from my LUG to the d-d-a list is
>  appropriate.

> In this context, we have a low volume lists that all
>  developers are supposed to subscribe to, and keeping the noise in the
>  mailing list down is probably best.

I wasn't defending the post to d-d-a, which I agree was pretty
inappropriate; I'm just trying to figure out this odd attempt at
excommunication.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:57:15 +0100, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Hello,
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and
>> > as such
>> 
>> Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world,

> That's simply wrong given the many people who use both and who cares
> about both. You're only one inside Debian and you can't generalize
> your personal opinion on the whole project.

Err, there are about a hundred distributions based on
 Debian. Do you think polluting d-d-a with announcements from these
 100 or so distributions is appropriate? (I can easily patch in
 Xandors and mepis announcements to d-d-a, really, and others should
 not be hard to pick up).

The Debian development announcements mailing list is for
 *DEBIAN* development announcements -- everything else os off topic.

> Furthermore we heard several times that some DD were unhappy about
> the version of their packages in Ubuntu which was integrated without
> their opinion and this mail is an opportunity for people like those
> who care to voice their opinion about their packages in Ubuntu.

Err, we distribute free software. How downstream users use
 free software is up to them. This is the freedoms we are striving
 for. I don't really want to hear announcements from gazillions of
 people about how they are planning to integrate software I work on
 into proprietary distributions of Linux.

> If you don't care about Ubuntu, just don't collaborate but please do
> not fight other Debian developers who are intested in working
> together with Ubuntu.

Then take such off topic stuff off the debian development
 announcements list.

manoj
-- 
heavy, adj.: Seduced by the chocolate side of the force.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:27:31 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:26:25AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 11:35:24PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and
>> > as such

>> Ubuntu is not part of the Debian world, because it does not share
>> the values that found Debian.

> That's kind of a strange position to take, isn't it?  Does this mean
> that the many users who use Debian directly sheerly on technical
> excellence alone, without sharing Debian's "founding values", are
> not part of the "Debian world"?  For that matter, I don't know of
> any derivative Debian distributions that require their developers to
> agree to the social contract; so by that standard, are *any* of them
> part of the "Debian world"?


The context here is whether announcements from such groups
 are on topic on d-d-a. I have a local LUG where lots of people use
 Debian -- and there are debian based install fests and so on (and
 talks, and BOF meetings over beer and pizza). I am not sure I think
 gating the announcements from my LUG to the d-d-a list is
 appropriate.

In this context, we have a low volume lists that all
 developers are supposed to subscribe to, and keeping the noise in the
 mailing list down is probably best.

manoj
-- 
You seek to shield those you love and you like the role of the
provider.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]