[eric@eric-weiss.de, if you read that: Fix your mail setup, I'm not interested in getting double mails from whatever setup you have there. Thanks] * Matt Zimmerman <mdz@ubuntu.com> [2006-01-17 11:36]: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> Do we call RMS a Debian developer? Do we call Linus a Debian Developer? >> Does anyone seriously consider that? > > Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world > understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he > was. Again my question: Do you seriously consider calling Linus and RMS Debian Developers? Even when you know exactly what this term refers so? Tell me why I should think that a derivated Debian distribution doesn't seem to be aware of the definition of this term within Debian. Sorry, Matt, but that does show to me that you aren't aware of the difference of these statements, which very much they are. >> Pardon, but that's ridiculous. I don't have upload permission at all, >> can't do anything about my packages, there are changed packages with >> still my name as maintainer that I never got any information about -- >> and you still have the guts to call me a Ubuntu developer? Sorry for >> laughing into your face for that... > > It isn't productive to take this kind of jeering tone. So you want to turn down this honest (and yes, I admit emotional driven, though still honest) question with such a statement? Do you really call people Ubuntu developers who don't have a real chance to do anything about what it is done to their packages and aren't informed about such actions? Please don't avoid this question again, because it is there. > I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a > world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement > on behalf of the project, and that malicious intent is far from the only (or > even the most common) reason for errors. It could very well be that Mark or > someone else originally wrote "from Debian" and the quote was transcribed > incorrectly. Then pretty please fix it. > In any case, as I said, I think the meaning of the sentence as a whole is > sufficiently unambiguous, though for the sake of clarity I will ask Mark to > look and correct it if appropriate. It isn't. The difference between to and from is a thing that is very much a difference. Because the to is the thing that isn't really working, or do you really think there would be so much fuss if the sync from Ubuntu back to Debian would really work? > This had been commonplace for Debian derivatives for years before Ubuntu > existed, and when the issue was raised regarding Ubuntu, I asked for input > from the Debian community as to what to do. The issue is not at all > obvious, and in fact it's quite similar to the attribution of upstream > authors of packages which are modified in Debian, which is even older. I don't know what was done for years, but I know for one thing that I was never contacted about changes to packages and if I'd approve them. Leaving my name in their as maintainer for a _changed_ package implies to some degree that I'm sort-of approving it. Either by being MIA through an NMU, through some team maintenance or similar. I can't do anything to revert such changes (no matter how good or bad I consider them) in packages in Ubuntu. I'm not responsible for the package in Ubuntu, so why should my name be in there? About the reasoning "others have done that, too", that is mainly used in kindergardens, I don't buy it. It sounds like a very cheap excuse. We aren't discussing others (and yes, I would have raised the same concerns there too, if I would have been made aware of it), we are discussing Ubuntu. > I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. What press release, and > how does d-d-a enter into it? You do read d-d-a, don't you? I am refering to buxy's mail, which stirred this all up. > If you had doubts about which packages were included, it wouldn't have > taken much effort on your part to find out. So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around and do what would had been so easy for Ubuntu, to inform the maintainers of packages, maybe only those that were changed upon? > Do you truly see this as such a radical departure from how Debian and other > distributions already work? Yes, I do. > Free software is rarely so clear-cut. By the time a piece of free > software arrives in the hands of a user, it has passed through more > than one set of hands and more often than not, modified from its > original version. But then the people who change it don't publish it under the name of others. And it is more common than uncommon that the people who change something send the changes back, instead of waiting for their upstream to stumble upon it and notice that there were changes in there. > As soon as the issue was raised (and although it was raised in a Debian > forum, without any attempt to contact a representative of Ubuntu) Because there is still my name as the Maintainer in the package. Of course I could contact Stephan Hermann <sh@sourcecode.de> (which I'll do now), but I think this is more a general problem. > In the end, the discussion seemed to die out without a clear > consensus, and so it was dormant again until now, where we're seeing > some of the same arguments without regard for the discussion which > came before. So sit and wait is the way ubuntu is working? I'm just asking, I want to understand. I haven't seen anyone in this thread who was against that changed packages should have the ubuntu developer's name in it, not ours. Our names are in the changelog anyway, and I really don't think that ubuntu is going to delete them, or are they? >> So you even confirm with this message that the pulling job that seems >> to be expected from Debian Developers is a stupid thing? At least here >> we agree. > > I don't agree there. So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful for a d-d-a mail so we are aware of it. > It may not be ideal, but it certainly isn't stupid, and the debate > isn't about pulling vs. pushing anyway (it's easy for a client to > convert a pull mechanism into a push mechanism), Oh, it very much is about pulling vs. pushing. Because the pushing part can be done right when one does the changes and does the upload, where the pulling part has to be done more or less regularly, just to find most of the time... nothing. > but rather about how much personal attention can be reasonably applied > to patch submission. When you are talking about patch _submission_, you are clearly talking about pushing the changes, not about us pulling them back. > Do you not read debian-devel-announce? Yes, I do. Again, I cite myself: >> I wonder why I never received any bugreport about my stupid and wrong >> C++ transition here... Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes? > As far as I can see, your only first-hand experiences with Ubuntu are: > > - Ubuntu redistributes your package, and you object to the fact that we do > so without having contacted you personally to notify you No. > - You were provided with a patch for the C++ transition, but declined to > apply it I wasn't. I object that ubuntu (or Mark) is claiming that every Debian Developer is a Ubuntu Developer which would in terms imply that we are able to upload and fix our stuff there. I object that ubuntu (or Mark) is claiming that ubuntu syncs to Debian, where it isn't. And I like to point out that there isn't any correspondence between the ubuntu developers and the debian developers in respect to getting sensible patches they do back into debian, which very much disappoints me, if not does get me a bad opinion on the intentions of ubuntu. So long, Alfie -- "...die Usenet-Ethik-Kommission ist seltsamerweise immer nur dann zur Stelle, wenn sich jemand erdreistet, eine unumfassende nichtkuschelweiche Antwort zu geben, die eine geringfügige (geistige) Mitarbeit des lesers erfordert..." ghw/19.2.00/at.usenet.sonstiges
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature