Re: Ubuntu/Debian cooperation [was: Complaint about #debian operator]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 12:55:45PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 12/15/05, Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > It is their choice to fork with (possibly) too small manpower to keep
> > > up.
> > They could just as well do their changes directly in the debian archive, and
> > have the ubuntu guys only recompile, or maintain the ubuntu-specific patches
> > which should *not* go into debian. That is provided the debian maintainer is
> > not an **** and refuses the patches out of sheer stuborness and
> > package-tirany, but this is a debian problem which needs his solution
> > independently of the above.
> I really didn't get this proposal, please elaborate on that (perhaps
> in private mail, if it gets too off-topic for -project). Without
> really understanding what you suggest, I doubt that it will be
> practicable, because it takes significantly more time to submit to
> debbugs, wait for the DD to prepare an upload and get it synced back
> than just uploading it to the ubuntu archive and have it on the
Yeah, sure, but it is the right thing to do. We have the following cases :
1) debian maintainer is unhelpful, or problematic, do as you always did,
and maybe bring this to the attention of debian in general who need to deal
with this problem.
2) debian maintainer is a good guy, and the patch is of generic benefit,
then the package should be fixed in debian first, and synced to ubuntu,
cooperation with the debian maintainer is easy done there, and team
maintainership of both debian and ubuntu packages is good.
3) debian maintainer is a good guy, but the patch involves some ubuntu
specific hack, or ubuntu branding. After concertation with the debian
counterpart or whoever, the patch is kept as a ubuntu-specific hack.
naturally this works best when both debian and ubuntu are in the development
phase, and not near freezes or such, but i guess it is a good, if somewhat
> mirrors a few hours later. For the moment, I rather consider doing
> both (submitting to bts and uploading to ubuntu) be the most practical
> approach. If the debian package accepts all our patches, we can
> eventually sync again.
Yeah. But this supposes doubling the work, and then you have the fact that
ubuntu is somehow stealing developper time and effort which would have gone to
> > The real problem is that many of those ubuntu-not-officially-supported
> > packages ahve never even heard of debian, and contributing back doesn't come
> > naturally to them, the issue is less with those maintainers ubuntu subverted
> > from debian, altough they may be hit by lack of time, which is an issue better
> > handled by doing the modification in debian and not ubuntu though, but may be
> > counter-productive to maintaining a separate ubuntu facade or whatever :)
> Sorry, I could not parse this sentence. I assume this is another
> accusation to either universe packages or MOTU in general.
Bah, if you feel like being accused, or fail to see anything but the good
sides of ubuntu, too bad for you.