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

Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)

* Matt Zimmerman (mdz@ubuntu.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible
> > Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly
> > 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing
> > the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard,
> > *especially* when you're rebuilding the package.
> > 
> > You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not.  It's also
> > not 'forking' in any real sense of the word.  You don't even have to
> > change the version number if you don't want to.  When done in Debian,
> > it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing
> > which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch.
> You quite obviously haven't read
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I
> wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward
> for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages".  I
> explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom.

Wow, is this ever silly.  Of course I read it and I appreciate your
position that it's more work than not doing anything different from what
you're doing now but I simply disagree about it and it seems like a
pretty straight-forward solution to implement.  I also understand that
not all Debian derivatives are changing the Maintainer field and that
Debian's not specifically chastising them for it.  There are reasons for
each though.  Other Debian derivatives aren't (or at least, don't seem)
as popular so it's less of an issue; other derivatives don't come across
as pulling resources away from Debian (which Ubuntu seems to be doing,
reality aside, that's the perception); other derivatives didn't ask and
sometimes that's just the burden you have to bear when you're actively
trying to do the right thing; other derivatives (some portion of them
anyway, I expect) don't recompile packages (which makes leaving the
Maintainer field alone somewhat less of an offense to some).

> If you're going to attack me, please do it on the basis of what I've
> actually said.  Honestly, I expected better from you, give that you've acted
> like a human being toward me on IRC on several occasions in the past.

Funny, I didn't think I was attacking you at all.  Rereading what you
quoted above I really don't see how that's an attack and I'm afraid
perhaps you've gotten a little sensitive on this.  I'm happy enough to
excuse that as I'm sure you've gotten a fair number of poor reactions
from others.  Looking through my other emails on the subject it seems
perhaps unkind of me to say you're ignoring the answer but, well, that's
how it's coming across. :/



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: