[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian presence at UDS-R - call for topics



The Ubuntu Developer Summit is now over. Here are the notes from [1] regarding the Debian session.

Minutes

Previous sessions:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-q-debian
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/community-p-debian
etc.

------------------------------------------------
topics from https://lists.debian.org/debian-derivatives/2012/10/msg00055.html

- support for Debian suites in Ubuntu PPA ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad/+bug/188564 )
 + This would be useful for helping Ubuntu developers to work with Debian.
 + This would require LP changes. LP development is fairly quiet, maintenance mode only.
 + Would Canonical provide buildd resources? Who would maintain chroots?

- state of Debian packaging of Unity and Ubuntu One: interest from Ubuntu/Canonical?
 + reason current effort died: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609278#67

- packages in Ubuntu Packages/Sources files missing SHA-1/SHA-256, see
  relevant entries from
  http://dex.alioth.debian.org/census/Ubuntu/check-package-list
   - [cjwatson] Could somebody file a Launchpad bug about this and subscribe ~ubuntu-archive?  It seems widespread enough that we should sort through it systematically.

- reduce the amount of packages that have been re-packaged from scratch
  in Ubuntu, or have "forked" packaging wrt Debian (as an indicator to
  spot them: they result in huge patches when we look at diffs in
  infrastructure tools like the derivatives census). Tentative list:
    
    linux
    iceweasel/firefox and other mozilla stuff - Canonical has an agreement for logos, etc and for certification of the firefox product
    nvidia-graphics-drivers
    chromium-browser (needed more embedded libraries to allow stable release updates)
    wine/wine-unstable (historical reasons mostly as Debian was behind and Ubuntu switched to versioned sources)
    calligra-l10n/koffice-l10n
    kde/xfce/gnome/lxde (xfce work is done in Debian)
    edubuntu/debian-edu - these teams are in contact with each other on a regular basis, could perhaps do more reporting on areas that are different and areas of collaboration
    digikam
    gtkmm3.0 (wrongly listed, we are in sync but on a newer series atm)
    kdepim
    mame (in sync)
    moon (removed!!!)
    openjdk-7 (control file needs regeneration) same maintainer in Debian and Ubuntu)
    qt4-x11 (merge from sid done at 4:4.8.2+dfsg-2 on Sep 12, 2012, 4.8.3 only in Ubuntu)
    qtwebkit-source (this was created so that it was easier to update qtwebkit without updating qt4-x11)
    quassel
    wxwidgets2.8 (has been merged [2.8.12.1-11ubuntu3])
    upstart (ubuntu is upstream)
    ldm-themes / ldm-ubuntu-themes - might be able to reduce to just one source package
    lxc
  
  ideal goal: reduce the size of
  http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/sync-blacklist.txt
   - [cjwatson] This *should* be getting better because our auto-sync script is now much cleverer than it used to and doesn't require sync-blacklist entries for trivial reasons; I cleaned some of the cruft out a cycle or so ago, but it probably needs another extensive sweep.  I agree that the shorter this is the better (for Ubuntu as well as for Debian).
  
- what could Debian do to avoid Ubuntu's need to fork packages?
  
- can Ubuntu contributors send a mail to inform relevant Debian
  maintainers when a UDS proposal affect their packages, so they know
  about it/ can provide feedback before implementation starts?
  
  [allison] process to add keywords to blueprints and allow people to subscribe to those keywords and be informed
  [laney] patch the internal blueprint review process to ensure that before approval, the presence of keywords (or affected packages) is verified
   
- encouraging MOTUs to help the review process on the debian-mentors
  list, some starting points:
  
    http://mentors.debian.net/intro-reviewers
    http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist
    http://wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian#Check_points_for_any_package
    http://wiki.debian.org/LucaFalavigna/NEWChecklist]
    ^ This might be a bit hard, since we're already struggling to get all patches in Ubuntu reviewed.
    http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/sponsoring/
  
  [zack] the review process is open to anyone http://mentors.debian.net/intro-reviewers (thanks paultag)
  [laney] can canonical employees as part of patch pilot to do mentors.d.n work?

Work Items:
[stefanor] Investigate missing sha256 checksums from package files in dex
[Debian Derivatives Census infrastructure]: find a place where to track the reason/status  of forking/repackaging from scratch, of specific cases
[TODO] add a refererence to (or table from) the Debian mentors list

Thanks,
Nathan Handler (nhandler)

[1] http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-r/meeting/21107/community-r-debian/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: