On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:29:56PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> If you'd like to discuss the above publicly, I suggest doing so on
> -derivatives. If OTOH you want to point me to specific episodes you'd
> like to remain private, feel free to mail me at leader@d.o.
Thanks to everyone who has already commented giving feedback and/or code
snippets to retrieve useful numerical figures!
I think I got the pulse of how people here feel about the Applications
Review Board (ARB) / Ubuntu extras / etc. I'll make sure to make this
point in my presentation.
At the same time, please do not focus only on this specific topic. It is
a relatively recent one and many more things have happened on the side
of collaboration with derivatives since around the start of this
list. I'd be glad if you can help me also with other topics on the
relationships among Debian and Ubuntu, both good and bad, that has
happened since then.
{{{
FWIW, on the specific point of ARB and Ubuntu extras, I've raised my
concerns also 6 months ago, when the idea was starting to circulate at
UDS. Back then I did that only chit chatting with people, as I didn't
have any specific event scheduled to discuss it.
I've been following a bit the recent ARB-related discussions. To be
fair, it should be mentioned that there is still a mixture of positions
about it in the Ubuntu community (see for instance positions by Scott,
Allison, Colin, and others in the long sub-thread starting at [1]). The
devil's is in the details and all will depend on how the procedure will
be used in practice.
[1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-October/034208.html
I think Debian should use any new "packaging channel" to encourage
upstreams and packages to do what we think is best for Free Software,
e.g. by encouraging to provide packages usable by all Debian derivatives
as well as being good upstreams for any distro out there. I do see
benefits if, for instance, they can use something like ARB to teach
upstreams about how to be good upstreams; another example of good usage
of that would be put upstreams in touch with people of the community
that we know are interested in packaging the same software (e.g. ITP /
RFP submitters).
But still we should keep in mind that doing the right thing™ costs extra
efforts to upstream and we are in no position to *impose* those efforts
on anybody. We should therefore consider the possibility that not every
upstream / packager out there would be willing to play that game. If
they don't want to, too bad for them, it'd mean their software will
remain only in the extras repository.
All in all I found Allison's summary [2] of the purpose of the various
packaging channels at Ubuntu's quite reasonable. We should check that
the good intentions of submitting to Debian are attended to in practice,
and do our best to spot and remove obstacles to that that might exist on
Debian's side.
[2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2011-October/034212.html
}}}
But back to the main point: please also comment on other, non
ARB-related, aspects of the Debian-Ubuntu relationships :-)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature