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

Re: What to do when DD considers policy to be optional? [kubernetes]

On Friday, 10 April 2020 5:43:57 PM AEST Marc Haber wrote:
> That a big package in Debian stable that has been abandoned by
> upstream months or even years ago is actually supported is fairy tale.

Let's remember that Kubernetes was never in "stable" to begin with.

This is not to say that it couldn't be useful in "testing", "unstable" or 
even "experimental". Many packages that may be considered not suitable for 
"production" are nevertheless useful.

What I've learned from my "Kubernetes affair" is that upstream is not capable 
of support (due to project's "attention deficit disorder") as they've 
seemingly lost control over issue management and they barely control enormous 
dependency tree where I've seen numerous abominations like sub-vendored 
multiple different versions of the same library...

IMHO Kubernetes demonstrated that problems in 3rd party dependency libraries 
can not be easily fixed upstream. In that regards Debian have greater 
potential due to flexibility of dependencies.

What I think is missing in this conversation is understanding that packaging 
Kubernetes (and other sophisticated software) is much about maintaining 
_ecosystem of libraries_ rather than building monolitic, unsupportable by 
design binary.

I think there is no question whether Golang ecosystem is useful in Debian or 
not. Therefore packages that maintained properly, with respect to ecosystem 
of their dependencies, are being useful, directly or indirectly.

Not every package deserves to be in "stable" and not every package outside of 
"stable" is worthless.

All the best,
 Dmitry Smirnov.


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in
practice, there is.
        -- Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: