Re: What to do when DD considers policy to be optional? [kubernetes]
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 23:16:51 +0100, Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> wrote:
>On 2020-04-05 21:15 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> having an obsolete version of the software distributed
>> with/through Debian is (rightfully) seen a liabilty by some upstreams,
>> not as an asset.
>
>I think a more interesting/important question is whether users like
>it, rather than whether upstreams like it.
I think it is also important to have our users be taken seriously by
upstreams. There is software that doesn't move as fast any more. Using
a two years old version of those is often fine.
Kubernetes, docker etc, however, are fast moving targets. Nobody in
the uptream community is willing to even consider answering a question
about a version that is two years old. The dialog will inevitably be
"well, first you update to our latest version and verify whether your
question still applies, then come back with your question" "but I am
using the version in Debian stable!" "well, Debian is stupid! Use
<other distribution instead>".
This is not doing our users a favor. And it hurts the Project.
>Quite a lot of users just want to use stuff and so long as it works
>for their purposes they really don't know or care if it is 2 years
>old.
And if it doesnt they want to be able to google for their issues or
ask the upstream community. You cannot ask the kubernetes community a
question about a kubernetes version that is two years old.
>I quite often find myself in this situation. Quite a lot of
>software is not something you want to care about - you just want to
>use it.
Quite a lot, yes. But there is software that doesn't work that way.
>Now of course things get sticky when the old version _doesn't_ work
>for the user's purpose (which happens sometimes) and they to go to bug
>upstream about the issue (rather than bugging debian).
Yes.
>So long as most users will find it works for them, then I think it's
>still really useful for us to package stuff,
That is not going to happen with kubernetes, docker, node.js et al at
this current time.
>because it's good for our
>users, whatever upstreams would prefer. What proprtion of users are
>likely to find a 2-yr old version satisfactory is a judgement for
>packagers (who will be left with the resulting bugs).
Agreed.
>In cases like this its also good to document that bugs should go to
>debian, not upstream, although of course not many people read docs so
>that won't work as well as one might like.
They don't. I remember when exim was still popular and people kept
coming to the upstream mailing list with their questions about
Debian's split config, not having read our docs. I stil cringe at the
thought.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: