[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Better communication between projects [Was: ad-hominem construct deleted]

Hash: SHA1

Michael Meskes wrote:
>>other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
>>the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
>>modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
>>go either way.
> Wait a moment, just to clarify this, you mean if you take a Debian package 
> change it for Ubuntu and let's say add your name to the maintainer field but 
> also add an additional X-Debian-Mantainer field (for example) that lists the 
> original maintainer, this will offend some fellow Debian maintainers? Anyone 
> care to tell me why?

As far i understand, some people get offended by this too. Someone
suggested this in some earlier thread and AFAIR it got shot down too. I
agree that this would be the way to go. Or better yet, add a
Modified-By: field that tells us who modified the package.. No wait.. we
already have that! Is this a problem with the tools after all. Maybe we
should modify the tools to contact the person who last modified the package.

This doesn't fix the problem that the user might not know about this and
while looking at the description gets misguided. Maybe we need something
like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact <package>' That way we could even add
a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that could
override the maintainer and modifier.

What do you think?

> But still, I have no problem with my name in the Ubuntu packages, but I'd 
> expect to know about this BEFORE it gets published. 

Yeah well, the damage has been done. Now it's time for damage control
and rebuilding.

Hopefully we and the next people who do this know better.

>>And about pulling the changes, did you notice these:
>>Ubuntu side:
> Whow! No, noone ever told me that I have an entry there that looks like it is 
> my entry but instead is created and kept up-to-date by someone else without 
> even caring to tell me. Sorry, but this is not the way I would treat anyone.

yeah, that page should mention that it's autogenerated. But basically
it's just indexing other data. I would assume that later on it will
index the debian archive too.

>>you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there,
>>if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been
>>modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version.
> Right I just tried this, but found that I have to diff the diffs to find the 
> changes. Or did I miss something.

Atleast in the ubuntu version of the patch repo, they try to separate
packaging, changelog and other fixes. I wish they separated the
autotools modifications too (filtered out updated autotools and so on)
so that the rest of the changes would reflect the actual changes to the
package itself.

And apparently the utnubu repo uses the same logic :(

- - S
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: