Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 10:17:38AM -0700, Stephen Birch wrote:
> Normal debian etiquette identifies the maintainer of a new package as
> the first person to file an ITP. So how is this coordinated with
In some cases, Ubuntu maintainers are not also Debian maintainers, and as
such would require sponsorship in order to upload their packages to Debian.
Ubuntu, on the other hand, imports all new source packages from Debian, so
there's no problem in that direction.
At first glance, it would seem sensible for Ubuntu maintainers to file ITPs
in order to avoid duplication of effort. However, it's not clear to me how
they should proceed once they have packaged the software and uploaded it to
Ubuntu. Ideally, they would be connected with a sponsor to upload the
package to Debian, but this can't be a requirement
> Unless I missed the ITP and filed a double by mistake we appear to have
> two independent wifi-radar maintainers now. The Ubuntu one and the debian
I don't see a wifi-radar package in Ubuntu, so unless I've missed something,
yours is the most authoritative package.
> But I sure want to see good coordination between Ubuntu and Debian.
As do we, of course.
> > Patches to bugs, debian maintainers picking up the patches from the
> > patch repository, inter-team communication. It depends.
> Still looks more like a fork than a derivative ..... or a spoon :-)
I don't know what basis you're using for this terminology, but "fork" in the
context of open source projects tends to have a negative connotation of
non-cooperation, which is certainly not the intent in the case of Ubuntu.
The -mm branch of Linux could technically be called a "fork", but given that
it serves a purpose complementary to that of Linus' tree, and provides a
source of patches to be merged into mainline, it would be misleading to
refer to it as such.