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

Re: Bug#701536: RM: subsurface -- RoQA; unmaintained package, maintainer MIA

John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
> The license issue was just an example (hence the braces). The reasoning 
> is that the Debian packaging is supposed to be independent of upstream, 
> especially since we cannot always follow upstream, during a freeze, for 
> example.

That makes sense.

> Assume we have version 3.0 in Debian and upstream has 3.5 and we're 
> frozen. During the freeze, someone discovers a nasty bug in subsurface 
> which is considered RC (release critical) in Debian, but gets fixed in 
> 3.5.1 upstream.
> Now, since we'd be in freeze, uploading the new version 3.5.1 into 
> unstable to fix the problem in testing would not be possible. Instead, 
> the fix would have to be backported to 3.0 and fixed in the Debian 
> packaging. If the Debian packaging would be part of upstream, 
> backporting the bug would be a bit difficult since the fix would be 
> realized as a patch in the debian/patches directory which wouldn't apply 
> if upstream was already at 3.5.1 (which includes the fix naturally) and 
> the official Debian packaging (which is at 3.0) would be part of the 
> upstream repository.
> I am aware that you could probably avoid this problem with branches, but 
> I think it would just make things difficult. Debian cannot simply be 
> up-to-date with upstream and thus upstream shouldn't maintain the 
> Debian-specific part.

Yes, all this could be worked around but it creates a dependency of
Debian on upstream and that's not desired. No problem.

>>> A great place for maintaining the packaging for Debian is github, for
>>> example.
>> Well - I run my own git server at git.hohndel.org but we can use
>> whatever works for the packaging.
> Sure, that was just a suggestion. I'd just keep it independent from 
> upstream.

OK, no problem.


Reply to: