Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around
Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to ubuntu, checking what other
Debian derivates, Fedora, OpenSuSe or even Gentoo etc have done for the
same software you are packaging might reveal patches and changes.
It is true that all that information is not available at one central place, which
makes this job a bit troublesome. Setting such setup should not be that
hard, it just requires LOTS of diskspace and bandwidth..
> 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.
This is what also wonder about ubuntu-haters. Somehow it is OK for
Debian to have different opinions and preferences ("Tell me about changes"
vs "don't spam me" or "You don't Attribute my work" vs "Don't put my
But at the same time you require a explict policy from ubuntu and anytime
a ubuntu developer says something about it is considered a official position
statetement.. Until we can do a official statement of debian derivate
policy ourselfs, we can hardly require it from them..
> Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality
> in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes?
The same can be claimed about about Debian and our upstreams. Not all
maintainers submit their patches upstream, and sometimes our lack
of co-operation have made our upstreams really unhappy (Remember micq?).
However, that is not an excuse for Debian Derivate Developers not to
co-operate with Debian Maintainers, or for us with our upstreams.
> 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.
Ubuntu (and other derivates) are using the same freedoms Debian
is built upon. We would not accept a licence that required us to submit
our patches upstream (dissident and desert island tests), so howcome it
is OK to require such behaviour from our downstreams?