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

What about a user-contrib directory? [was: Re: uploads for bo (was Re: Non-free libc5 packages??)]



What i would really like to see is a section for (though officially
unsupported) user contributed packages like it is available with
Redhat in their contrib directory.

One of the major reasons of Redhat's popularity i definitely account
for is the possibly to upload and make available RPM's by dedicated
users of the Redhat distribution.  These packages are not officially
supported by Redhat but nonetheless made available to their large user
base.  This way users have the opportunity to stay attuned to
unofficial but installable and working RPM based packages of the most
recent forthcomings of newly released software without being dependent
on the sometimes hesitating release frequency of any official package
maintainer.

In comparison Debian's policy towards contributed packages appears to
be rather closed although it's fundamental philosophy actually claims
the opposite of being more open than any other distribution.  I feel
that Debian tends to exhibit a rather bureaucratic appeal and actually
this made myself (and maybe others?) hesitate to become more committed
to Debian so far by contributing my own packages.  It's IMHO a pity
that one can't contribute without becoming an official maintainer.
Debian is definitely lagging behind by adhering to it's rather rigid
centralized package release scheme instead of depending on the
decentralized development method which made Linux what it is today.
Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Basar" should apply to Debian in
an even more open style than it appears to currently apply.

Above all there is no possibility to at least unofficially update
packages for 'stable' which the official maintainers seem to have
forgotten about (or whatever reason they may have) like it was (maybe
still is?) way too long the case e.g. for the Debian packages of "gv"
or "mc" to name just a few.  Here would be the possibility to have at
least an unofficial user contributed package available for download
instead of having to accept pretty outdated versions of official
packages which are sometimes not available even in 'unstable'.

I learned making my own Debian packages mainly out of the need to keep
my 'stable' based system up to date since i'm not very content with
the way 'stable' is kept in tune with the release frequency of the
upstream author's versions.  This is valid even for the devel tree of
the next official Debian release which is probably to be expected when
'stable' is already so much outdated that new users would rather
prefer to start with any other Linux distribution like Redhat instead.

Not all users with enough skills to make their own Debian packages are
in the position to make their work available to a larger public by
providing FTP services like i can privately do to some limited degree
at "ftp://ietpd1.sowi.uni-mainz.de/pub/debian/unofficial/";.  All those
talented packagers out there should be given the opportunity to make
available unofficially what can't be provided on an official basis.
Therefore i propose in the established spirit of the Linux community
to provide a section with officially unsupported user contributed
Debian packages on the official Debian FTP sites just as Redhat does.
I already have some packages waiting... ;-)

                                      Thank you, P. *8^)

PS: Please don't reply by e-mail and exclusively only to the list.
    I'd like to start an open discussion on this topic and don't want
    to receive any messages twice.
-- 
   Paul Seelig                         pseelig@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de
   African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
   Johannes Gutenberg-University   -  Forum 6  -  55099 Mainz/Germany
   My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig 


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: