Re: Is Ubuntu a debian derivative or is it a fork?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:49:39AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The same logic applies to many bugs as well. Would it really be better to
> > have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?
> I'd prefer an open bug report in debbugs with the patch included.
> > I know of no reason to mass-file bug reports, except that some people insist
> > that the best place to publish Ubuntu's patches is in debbugs. I disagree
> > with that position, myself.
> Why? It's a commonly held belief that the best place to publish Debian's
> (relevant) patches is in the upstream BTS.
> > proposals, but we have very limited developer resources compared to Debian.
> I keep hearing this from Ubuntu, and yet the obvious solution to the problem
> ("stop doing so damn much") has apparently never been considered. It seems,
> from my perspective, that doing a good job on a smaller subset of the free
> software universe would be better than the current attempts. Scale over
> time, don't try to do everything at once and then say "we didn't have enough
> resources to do it properly".
You're not suggesting "stop doing so damn much" so much as "spend more
resources on Debian and fewer resources on Ubuntu". This is a difficult
balance to strike, and one side will be displeased with the result
regardless. A "good job" to you means that Ubuntu developers do a larger
share of the work of getting their changes into Debian. A "good job" to
Ubuntu means that the work is more complete and correct.
Since sharing code is to the benefit of both projects, it makes sense to try
to find ways to share the burden of convergence. Quite a bit of code has
already been submitted by Ubuntu developers in the ideal manner you
described, but doing this for every change isn't feasible.