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

Re: DEX update and next steps

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:44:11 +0800
Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org> wrote:

> [ preserving all Cc:-s, as requested by M-F-T header ]
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:37:26AM +0000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> > This leaves the non-trivial ones which may require some discussion
> > about what to do:
> I'll postpone for a moment most of the comments on specific patches,
> as I've seen they're progressing elsewhere on this thread. However,
> I've a comment on this "patch commenting" process.
> This list is great to reach out people who are interested in
> cross-derivative collaboration. That, unfortunately, does not mean
> that we can hope to have here all competences to comment on *specific
> patches* that could apply archive wide. At best, we could identify the
> teams to contact. I thus wonder whether it wouldn't be better to
> decide that (maybe after a first round here?) patch feedback should
> be asked on mailing lists where we have more hope to reach out to the
> "right" people, such as -devel. What do other people think about this?

I don't think it would be too laborious to see 2 or 3 rounds of
discussion about patches on here. if it doesn't go anyware, i'd say the
next place should be the maintenance list for the package.

> > I'd like to start compiling ideas for the next Ubuntu DEX project,
> > once the above tasks have been completed.  Here are some ideas:
> > 
> > - Big merges: Create a list of packages with large or problematic
> > deltas, and try to rationalize them.  There are a relatively small
> > number of packages which carry a lot of patches.  We should try to
> > get them in sync, and also try to solve the underlying problem
> > which caused the divergence so that it doesn't happen again.
> ACK on this. I expect to find within this a class of "branding"
> patches, which derivative have used to enforce coherent themeing or
> the like, where upstream software didn't offer a generic framework to
> do that already. The goal for each such patches would probably be to
> implement such a framework and have it accepted upstream (which might
> be challenging).

Branding will be something that will need to be changed everywhere, so
i was wondering how much of it could be moved into branding packages?
it would prevent everyone carrying the same deltas on all packages,
except with 'debian' crossed out and 'ubuntu' or 'gnewsense' written in.

> On the converse side, we might also want to start maintaining a list
> of divergences which are not meant to be reconciled. That happens
> sometimes in Debian wrt upstream, it'll probably be the case also for
> derivatives. Although those cases are unfortunate, it's in our
> interest to keep such a list somewhere, so that we avoid
> re-considering them over and over again.

Usertagged and or added to UDD?

> > - New packages: Continue the Utnubu effort to identify packages
> > which are new in Ubuntu and not in Debian yet, and try to get them
> > into Debian (file WNPP bugs? upload orphaned packages? find
> > maintainers? sponsor the Ubuntu maintainer?)
> Sponsor the Ubuntu maintainer to upload in Debian would probably be
> the best option, possibly inviting them to maintain the package
> directly in Debian. I suggest to ask for feedback on -mentors on this
> specific topic.

Is team maintaining (orphan) packages something that we should consider
as derivatives, or just trying to find interested maintainers for said

> Thanks for keeping the ball rolling,
> Cheers.

Certainly agree again :)

Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
No, I won't join your social networking group

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: