Re: Upstream packaging
Clint Byrum <spamaps@debian.org> writes:
>> Also if people thought that distributions are unneeded, then the
>> amount
>> of them would reflect that, or start decreasing, which I'm not seeing.
>> Distributions will exist as long as there's FLOSS, because by its
>> decentralized nature, there's no single coordination point; people
>> who are distraught by the amount of distributions or by their mere
>> existence might probably only be able to find peace in closed-systems
>> instead, with their centralized control points.
>>
>
> Nobody is distraught. The problem statement was something like
> "distributions lag upstreams, how can we solve this?" and I'm
> suggesting that its kind of already solved with upstreams who use
> their native packaging format (i.e., autotools, pypi for python, or
> maven for java). Its just that Debian has such strong policies that we
> are unable to consume said packaging, because the upstream packaging
> is less expressive. So, we have to lag while we QA all of our
> specialness.
There's so much more to packaging and *maintaining* a debian package
than wrapping whatever upstream has in a .deb, even if we apply very
few (or none at all) changes during the process.
Just because something uses autotools, it will not mean you can
trivially package it, or upgrade from one version to the other. There
are a million things that can - and sooner or later, will - break even
if upstream only uses standard tools. A new dependency, a new configure
option, changing defaults, and all kinds of incompatible changes make
maintainance neccessary and far more effort than you seem to imply.
Most of these are things upstream do not have to care about: they'll
document it in an UPGRADING file or similar, and delegate the task to
their users. A distribution will most likely wish to automate most of
that in a straightforward and safe manner.
>>> Where Debian's efforts should be focused is on things like license
>>> verification and helping bug reports and fixes get to upstream.
>>
>> So basically, getting rid of most of the fun stuff and turning it into
>> a lawyerish play-ground and support center... I'd venture to say, not
>> the most attractive work for most people here if it was the only
>> thing to be done, which we do because we think it's important non the
>> less.
>>
>
> I am suggesting that there are a lot of things that are much more fun
> than conforming software to Debian policy.
Wouter said it very well, that the Policy is not a goal, but a tool to
achieve a goal: that of an integrated system. Making packages conform to
policy is pointless, if it is not done to achieve the goal. Creating a
well integrated system on the other hand *is* fun, and something that
can't be delegated to upstream, or anywhere else but the distribution
itself.
> I'm also suggesting that these things don't need to happen in the
> context of Debian.
Where else? Upstreams should not be concerned about integrating their
software into distributions. That's what package maintainers are for:
they know the distribution better, they have the skills and resources to
do the neccessary integration work, they know how their distribution
handles upgrades, and so on and so forth.
Upstreams should provide the tools and documentation to make integration
possible and smooth, but that's where it should end.
As an upstream, I do not wish to care about any single distribution.
I'll provide ample documentation, scripts and whatever else they need,
but I do not wish to play the integrator role. If I start to do that for
one distribution (wit my upstream hat on), I'll have to do it for the
rest too. No, thank you, that is as far from fun as it can ever be.
--
|8]
Reply to: