Re: User-contrib, up-to-date stable
Paul asked that I return our private conversation to the list.
On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Paul Seelig wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul!
> >
> Hi Dale!
>
> > First: It isn't clear whether you are asking that master.debian.org, and
> > it's mirrors provide this space, although it appears that that is what you
> > wish. If this is so, you aren't likely to get the space. This is more
> > because of the association with Debian that would automatically follow
> > rather than any desire to stifle your idea.
> >
> I was really hoping to see realized a section like the one i proposed
> on the Debian site and it's mirrors as an additional service to the
> users of 'stable' who do want to stay with 'stable' but at the same
> time want some components to be up to date.
OK, that is clear now. Debian prides itself (ourselves?) on the
professional quality of its distribution. I sense a strong feeling that
the close association (by providing the site in association with the
Debian archive) of this archive with Debian, when there is no control over
the way those packages will integrate into the "stable" distribution.
The Debian Distribution isn't just a sack of packages. The primary task in
building a distribution is "integration". We sometimes forget that because
our packaging system handles so much of that integration for us.
None of the above argues against the desire by some for an "interum"
solution. For me, this looks like a good candidate for a "spin-off"
distribution. (We keep encouraging "Debian Based" distributions, but the
takers are few)
>
> For me personally this has been the case among other packages with
> Midnight Commander, XEmacs/Emacs, Perl-5.004 and even teTeX-0.8 which
> i prefer to run out of the usual Debian context in /usr/local/ so that
> i can take advantage of the fixes and updates of the upstream
> maintainer Thomas Esser as soon as they come out ('stable' has a not
> up to date version of teTeX). Because of the latter i even made my
> 'equivs' dummy package allowing me to circumvent dpkg's dependencies.
>
We really need a better way to deal with dependencies satisfied by
programs in /usr/local. There needs to be a simple way to tell dpkg that
the dependency is satisfied. My current method is to edit the status file
and mark the package "Status: hold ok installed". This tells dpkg that the
package is installed, but keeps dselect from doing any "upgrading" that is
not desired.
> > Second: It seems that you are already providing the packages you think
> > important from your site. From what you have said here, you began with
> > source only, and moved to include binaries when those were desired. What
> > you don't make clear is whether these binaries are provided in a .deb file
> > or simply as executables. If you are only providing binaries unpackaged,
> > then I begin to see a glimmer of what you are really asking.
> >
> Yes, i'm providing all those packages i myself had a need for to the
> rest of the Debian user community and it seems to be well received
> judging from the transfer logs. The most popular packages are the
> 'mc' and the 'equivs' package. I've even received some bugreports for
> packages of mine. ;-)
>
> And yes, i've been properly packaging up the binaries as reliably
> working .deb's. Just have a look at this site eventually and see for
> yourself: "ftp://ietpd1.sowi.uni-mainz.de/pub/debian/unofficial/";.
> It's open 24 hours a day seven days the week. ;-)
>
> It's actually pretty easy to package as .deb when one has gained some
> experience with it. Debian's 'deb-make' really makes it easy. And then
> there is always the official maintainer's customizations one can adapt
> to new upstream versions. There is no point in not packaging the
> binaries as .deb because without this one couldn't take advantage of
> dpkg's superior install/uninstall features.
>
> > If you are asking for permission to create and distribute packages outside
> > the Debian distribution as .deb files, you need not have asked. Anyone can
> > create a .deb file. All the software needed IS free, after all, and so is
> > the .deb format. You are prefectly free to create your own .deb packages
> > and distribute them seperately or in a bundle. Personally, I would be
> > tickled to see an interum, cleaned up release between each and every
> > Debian release. I just don't see us (the Debian Developers) as having the
> > manpower to make such a thing happen. This accounts for most of the
> > resistance you have seen from the group.
> >
> I know that i don't need permissions from nobody to package stuff as
> .deb and to distribute it as i please. But non maintainer contributors
> like me would need permission to provide unofficial binaries into such
> a section like a "user-contrib" or "unsupported" directory on a Debian
> site. And i'm aware that it's hard to have an updated interim release
> of 'stable' for the official developers and one just can't expect
> anybody to do additional work for it. But then there are as well
> people who'd like to contribute doing the work the official maintainer
> just can't be expected to provide.
>
> The trouble is that it's actually very long until 'unstable' gets
> eventually released and the upstream developers are not waiting doing
> nothing until this release happens. They are releasing new upstream
> versions fixing bugs and adding long wanted useful features and so on.
> And as a user i'd like to take advantage of these fixes and superior
> features now and not when 'unstable' gets finally released as
> 'stable'. I'd like to see 'stable' as a fixed reference platform to
> which additional up to date packages could be released as a
> complement.
>
> > If you want more visability than your own site, I'm sure that jimpic.com
> > would host your archive, you could probably even get sunsite to create a
> > debian-user-contrib area for such things. This would open up the task to
> > lots more folks as contributors. You don't need permission from SPI or
> > Debian to do any of these things.
> >
> Jim's idea is not so far away from what i had in mind. And if it is
> really not possible to create such a complementary directory on the
> Debian sites i'll happily upload my stuff there. Asking at sunsite
> would be a last resort. But to tell the truth i feel actually a bit
> discouraged by the overprotective resistance i've been reading between
> the lines of some repliers. I may be mistaken though...
>
> > In case you haven't guessed, I have no problem with the user-contrib idea,
> > but "the devil's in the details" ;-)
> >
> Yes, it's IMHO not just about uplading files and forget about them for
> possible contributors.
>
> > One thing that might help would be an "identifier" in the package name
> > that would "indicate" who the actual packager was. Something like a two
> > character code that could be looked up in the README file. This would let
> > various folks "develop" reputations and provide a filter for folks that
> > don't want a package from "Fred".
> >
> That's actually a pretty good idea. I myself even think that
> "$SOURCE/debian/changelog" should definitely state that the package
> in question is a non maintainer or unofficially contributed package to
> have a possibility to distinguish between official and non official
> packages. This way the state of the package in question could easily
> be reflected in the $PACKAGE.dsc and $PACKAGE.changes files.
> Bugreports should be sent directly to the unoffical packager. If a
> package seems to cause more trouble than benefits (based on user
> feedback) it should be instantly removed from the user-contrib site.
>
> > I might also suggest that the site contain a current copy of the
> > Debian Policy Manual, so that prospective submitters can check to
> > see that their packages will conform to the Debian system that they
> > are installed onto.
> >
> Unofficial packages which don't conform to Debian policy at least up
> to a certain acceptable degree shouldn't be provided to the public.
>
One of those devilish details is how to enforce this on a directory that
anyone can stuff packages into? Maintianers have access through their
accounts (and are accountable because of this) and are known persons.
> Thanks a lot, Dale! Your input has been showing the most support to my
> idea so far. It's a pity you didn't send it to the list though and i'd
> like to encourage you to resend this answer to debian-devel if you
> don't mind. I think other's would be interested too.
>
Your wish ...
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
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: