Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > This is a falacy, for example, I would never use any of these (IMHO > > useless at best and often damaging[1]) patch management systems (I know of > > two much better ones: subversion and arch), but this does not mean that I > > do not feed (and, as necessary, re-feed for new upstream releases) > > individual patches to all my upstreams for every non-debian-specific > > change that I make to my packages. I have no reason to think that I'm > > alone in this. > > I didn't claim that you were alone in this, but the fact is that there are > plentiful examples of packages in Debian where this is not the case: we've > discussed the situation on this very mailing list in the past. I don't understand why you're talking about packages here. Feeding patches upstream is not a package-level problem, it is a maintainer-level problem. Where it doesn't happen a maintainer is not doing his job according to Debian's established best practices. It's a pity that Ubuntu doesn't seem to have similar guidelines for feeding patches usefully upstream to Debian. > > > Ubuntu re-converges with Debian very regularly. I think what you meant to > > > say is that you want Debian to re-converge with Ubuntu. > > > > Not really. > > Without any clarification on your part, my interpretation remains unchanged. > Ubuntu routinely imports all of the new code in the Debian archive, sorts > out any necessary merging, and incorporates the changes. You are arguing > for something similar to happen in the opposite direction. I clarified it in my next paragraph. I don't understand how you can say here that Ubuntu always merges with Debian and then claim below that it would depend on a case by case basis. > > > Regarding your specific example, I know of no reason why Debian couldn't use > > > Ubuntu's X.org packages when Debian is ready to make the transition, but in > > > the end that will be the XSF's decision, not Ubuntu's. > > > > Let's assume that they don't (since they're not, exactly, TTBOMK). Now > > does Ubuntu re-converge its X.org packaging with Debian's new > > packaging, or do you stay forked? > > That question obviously depends on the details of the differences in > packaging, which I don't have at the moment. We'll do what makes most sense > for Ubuntu based on how the situation plays out. > > Surely it would be misdirected effort to reimplement work which has already > been done in Ubuntu, and so I assume the Debian packaging would at > least be based on Ubuntu's packaging This seems to assume that Ubuntu always makes the best decisions for Debian. Perhaps we instead decide to use work done by Progeny instead. Perhaps we even decide to *gasp* do it ourselves. My original question remains -- would you possibly massively rework your package to stay based on Debian's, or leave it forked? -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature