Re: Debian concordance
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 01:55:57PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote:
> I don't doubt there were changes, even some worthwhile changes,
> between the version of libc in sarge and the versions in
> hoary/breezy. My question is: Are the changes worth breaking
> compatibility? It's a cost/benefit thing. And if they're
> important enough, why aren't they going into Debian directly?
> I understand why Ubuntu was moving ahead of Debian before, since
> Debian was so far behind. But now that sarge is out, don't
> you think it would be worthwhile to give Debian a chance to fix its
> release cycle problems and, better yet, to try to help fix them,
> rather than simply saying "Debian is too slow/unpredictable for us"?
Let's slow down for a minute. No one has said "Debian is too
slow/unpredictable for us", no one is denying Debian a chance to address the
issues with its release cycle, and Hoary did not break glibc ABI
compatibility with Sarge.
I think the following timeline might help to clarify the situation:
2004-12-27 glibc 2.3.2.ds1-20 uploaded to sid
2005-04-08 Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary Hedgehog) released, with glibc based
on (and compatible with) sid's (and sarge's) 2.3.2.ds1-20
2005-04-16 glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21 uploaded to sid
2005-04-18 glibc 2.3.5 uploaded to experimental
2005-04-28 glibc 2.3.2.ds1-21 accepted into sarge
2005-05-17 glibc 2.3.5 uploaded to breezy
2005-06-06 Debian 3.1 (Sarge) released, with glibc 2.3.2.ds1-22
2005-06-?? glibc 2.3.5 expected to enter sid sometime this month
As I've said to you privately already, I do not feel that demanding binary
compatibility between Debian and Ubuntu is the best way to address your
concerns. You seem to disagree strongly, as is of course your right, but I
think that some of the comments that you've made in support of this cause
have been misleading.
The fact is that Hoary *was* binary compatible (in both directions) with
both sarge and sid when it was released. Later, the Debian glibc
maintainers and release managers considered changing the ABI in order to fix
a bug. In the course of a lengthy discussion, including expression of
concerns about inter-distribution compatibility, they weighed the options
and decided to go ahead with it. I fully support their decision, and I do
not consider the resulting incompatibility to be a significant obstacle to
the continuing growth and success of either Debian or Ubuntu. Presumably,
neither did they.
Again, you may disagree with me on this point, but there is no justification
for claiming that Ubuntu created this situation, regardless of your opinion
> Again, as I've said before, it's *sarge* the rest of the world thinks of
> as Debian, not sid. So, "we're getting out patches into sid" or "we're
> tracking sid" or whatever doesn't really help anything.
I don't know what you mean by this. Are you trying to say that:
- Patches received from Ubuntu should have been pushed into sarge more
- Ubuntu should base its development branch on sarge rather than sid?
Neither of these interpretations make sense to me.