Bug#904302: Whether vendor-specific patch series should be permitted in the archive [and 1 more messages]
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:14:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
>
> Wouter> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >> That said, even there there are tradeoffs. As an example, Ubuntu
> >> tries to use unmodified Debian source packages where possible.
> >> In some cases I think that the maintenance advantages of doing
> >> this and the slight but real political pressure it creates to
> >> push changes upstream to Debian may justify switching on
> >> dpkg-vendor.
>
> Wouter> I disagree with that, because it forgets why you're pushing
> Wouter> things to Debian.
>
> Wouter> The point of pushing things upstream is so that you as well
> Wouter> as upstream end up being the same, and the maintenance
> Wouter> difference disappears. By switching on dpkg-vendor, you're
> Wouter> *not* the same; instead, you're hiding your difference. This
> Wouter> is not generally helpful; it simply moves the maintenance
> Wouter> burden from Ubuntu to Debian (where it simply does not
> Wouter> belong).
>
> I think that we're agreed that evaluating the maintenance burden is
> exactly the right criteria.
Yes.
> Imagine a case where the same folks are maintaining a package for
> multiple distributions and where the difference is small but important.
> In such a case I think our users and the free software community might
> best be served by a single repository and switching on something a lot
> like dpkg-vendor.
Sure. For one thing though, it's incorrect to assume that the same group
of people will maintain a given package for all eternity, and that the
time when they *do* keep maintaining that package in Debian is the same
as for any number of derivative distributions.
This is all explained in
<https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What.27s_wrong_with_upstream_shipping_a_debian.2F_directory.3F>.
While that wiki page talks about the Debian-upstream relationship, many
of the same (kind of) arguments apply equally well to a
downstream-Debian relationship.
> Imagine a case where it's a different set of people doing the work for
> Debian than the distribution that wants the change. The Debian
> maintainers are not in a good position to test the change and have no
> desire to do so. There, switching on vendor seems like the wrong
> option.
>
> We're a group of volunteers; we encourage cross-project collaboration
> and working together. I believe that the primary consideration should
> be what reduces the burden on those doing the work. There are secondary
> considerations of course.
Sure.
Note, I'm not saying that we should outlaw the practice. There are
considerations for doing (or not doing) certain things; an experienced
Debian maintainer can certainly decide that in one particular case,
those considerations do not apply, and then it should be fine to ignore
the advice and do what is right.
But in the general case, I feel that downstream packaging changes belong
downstream, not in Debian; therefore it is best to recommend that, in
the general case, packages in Debian do not switch on dpkg-vendor.
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
Reply to: