On Saturday, 23 January 2021 3:18:52 AM AEDT Shengjing Zhu wrote: > The real complex things are, dealing license and copyright and *NEW* queue. > If this TC decision is that we just trust what upstream say, then why not > just unvendor them. Then many pieces of libraries can be reused by others. Even without packaging new libraries, we could do so much better un-vendoring some of already packaged ones, even if maintainer focuses only on those that are _easy_ to un-vendor. Vendoring _everything_ is crazy, unnecessary, irrational... -- Cheers, Dmitry Smirnov GPG key : 4096R/52B6BBD953968D1B --- People are rarely grateful for a demonstration of their credulity. -- Carl Sagan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:28:46PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Our consensus is that Kubernetes ought to be considered special in the > same way that Firefox is considered special -- we treat the package > differently from most other source packages because (i) it is very large > and complex, and (ii) upstream has significantly more resources to keep > all those moving parts up-to-date than Debian does. > Sigh, You seems to misunderstand why packaging Kubernetes is complex. Package every dependency and using dpkg dependency relationships are possible and easy. Creating a Go package has automated tool, it won't take much time to package all. We can also have more than one version of one library if Kubernetes has particular need. The real complex things are, dealing license and copyright and *NEW* queue. If this TC decision is that we just trust what upstream say, then why not just unvendor them. Then many pieces of libraries can be reused by others. Shengjing Zhu signature.asc Description: PGP signature