Re: the .org proposal or "join forces"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:50:39 +0100
Finn-Arne Johansen <faj@bzz.no> wrote:
> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:58:44 +0100
> > Steffen Joeris <Steffen.Joeris@skolelinux.de> wrote:
> >
> >>>>I still have a hard time understanding the difference between
> >>>>skolelinux development and Debian development. I have no interest
> >>>>in building up a parallel to Debian.
> >>>
> >>>Who talks about that?
> >
> > This thread:
> >
> > Consolidating and expanding the organisation around development of
> > Skolelinux instead of using the already-existing resources of
> > Debian is building up a parallel to Debian.
>
> We are not building something in paralell to Debian, We are extending
> debian, into some place wer debian wont go.
Why won't Debian go where Debian-edu goes?
> >>>You should know that i agree in getting all stuff back into debian,
> >
> > So do Ubuntu. And I don't say that as a way of cursing - but as a
> > way of describing: Ubuntu puts itself ahead of Debian with
> > regards to development, and wants to pass all of its findings back
> > to Debian at some point. But the business model is to duplicate
> > Debian in the process.
>
> One big difference is that we use stable Debian as our base. And very
> few packages are patched to fit our needs.
Great. Let's make it as easy as possible to get the remaining parts
into Debian as well, shall we? Or has Debian-edu come to stay as an
eternal small Debian add-on rather than working towards getting the
enhancements absorbed into Debian itself?
> > If Debian-edu sees itself as within Debian, rather than ahead of or
> > besides, then use Debian resources whenever possible.
>
> not ahead, not beside, but on top.
Is that the general opinion or only that of Finn-Arne?
Why then call Debian-edu a CDD?
A CDD is not meant to emphasize an already existing facet of Debian,
not extend it.
> > Debian has a website: http://www.debian.org/ . Not a CMS, but static
> > pages written in Web Meta Language and stored in CVS. This is not
> > the easiest way to post content, but remember that we are talking
> > about the _development_ here, *not* the school administrators. One
> > reason to use this relatively inconvenient system is that it has
> > potential to get translated into *lots* of different languages, and
> > thus better reach decision makers globally.
>
> hmm, who can contribute there - DD only ?
If you mean who can do the final step of publishing as part of Debian
then that probably requires a DD. But I see nothing wrong in, say,
putting the WML source of http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-edu/ under
SVN maintainance or even in wiki (if anyone volunteers to write the
syncing scripts required) and then is pushed into the main web CVS when
needed.
All CDDs mentioned at http://www.debian.org/sitemap except Debian-edu
has an introduction within the main web, translated into 6-9
non-english languages.
> > Debian has source maintainance tools: http://alioth.debian.org/ .
> > We use that already. Great! I just recommend that we avoid
> > maintaining ordinary packages like italc in that project and
> > concentrate on stuff directly related to the Debian-edu/Skolelinux
> > infrastructure. Don't get me wrong - italc shouldn't be dropped,
> > just maintained in a separately setup project[1], possibly with
> > overlap in developers, but maybe now or later handed over to others
> > more interested in simple packaging maintainance than in the larger
> > perspectives of Debian-edu.
>
> Yes we use it. more and more.
Did you read what I wrote? What role do italc play in the development
of Debian-edu?
> > Debian has a wiki: http://wiki.debian.org/ . Let's use that! Again,
> > don't confuse globally oriented development coordination and locally
> > oriented efforts. It makes good sense for Skolelinux in germany to
> > speak german and have an own wiki to strengthen their sense of
> > community. But it also makes good sense to move their
> > internationally oriented pages to somewhere shared among all
> > Debian-edu developers, and I believe that place is really the
> > Debian wiki - to mingle more with Debian instead of drifting off.
>
> Yes, some of us are using it. And we should probably use it even more.
> But I do like to have things in cvs/svn, and edit things in a normal
> editor. I dont think wiki.debian.org let me do that.
>
> > Debian has a planet: http://planet.debian.org/ . Let's use that. We
> > are Debian, right? Or what makes us so special that we
> > (developers!) do not want to hang out with our cousins in other
> > parts of the mother project?
>
> Hmm, this is a place were I guess only DD's ha an account.
I thought so too but went glancing as part of writing the above, and
it why would someone[1] need a package sponsor if official developer
himself?
> > Debian has a bug tracker: http://bts.debian.org/ . Let's use that,
> > and request one or more pseudo-packages created for Skolelinux
> > instrastructural meta bugs. What we win is easier integration with
> > Debian - 'cause our end goal is complete absorbtion into Debian,
> > right?
>
> OK, this is an interesting point. We have our own packages that we
> work on on a daily basis. And most, if not all of them are also
> uploaded into Debian. At some point I filed a bug on a package that
> we uses in debian-edu, but we used a newer than the one in
> debian-unstable. I dont remember if our maintainer called me, or if
> it was on irc (i could find out if you want to know), and was really
> angry, because I had filed a bug on a version that he not yet had
> uploaded into debian. He told me that I could get blacklisted from
> bts from that. Do we want that to happen with our users ? I dont.
Bugs filed against something not in Debian must at most be a minor
issue when "most, if not all [.. are ..] uploaded into Debian" as you
claim.
Seriously, the cooperation with Debian should naturally be in
awareness of those involved: Expecting the Debian developer to know
about your unofficial hack to her package is imposing additional work
on her - which is rude. So the anger is (to some extend) understandable.
Instead, working with the package maintainer would be better. If the
package was group-maintained you could offer to prepare parallel
releases of the package with the Debian-edu hacks included, and also
take care of the bugreports ticking in (from Debian-edu users or others)
against such experimental package until it was deemed suitable for
mainstream.
> >>>but nevertheless we need space for our own stuff (maybe call it
> >>>debian-edu.org). We are at a point where we have special stuff for
> >>>our own.
> >
> > Our end goal is full and complete absorbtion into Debian, right? So
> > any and all "special stuff" is something we want to either get rid
> > of or have Debian adopt, right? So let's work on that rather than
> > work on a more solid foundation of those non-Debian paths.
>
> I dont think we will ever be there, mainly because we _have_to_
> continue to use the stable debian as the base for our development.
> But we need to get our things mature so they can be adopted by Debian.
"Within Debian" does not mandate "using only packages part of a stable
distro release.
You might be right that Skolelinux will always need to be less stable
than Debian. But still the development can be done more closely
together with Debian (and only the CD rollout scripts could then use a
Debian-edu-scific cocktail of stable, testing, unstable and
experimental packages.
> >>>because now I see that your fear becomes true. We are still working
> >>>in local teams
> > Just to clarify: I find local teams very important. And those should
> > work however they see fit. But share whatever possible, and the
> > _development_ part of Debian-edu/Skolelinux in my opinion is best
> > shared in the context of Debian (when possible), rather on its own.
>
> Yes, when possible, but we need something between "every local team
> builds his own addon-cd", and "we only use debian
> sources/repositories/whatever"
I talk about the sanity of local development sub-communities - like a
german wiki and a norwegian mailinglist - coordinating their work
globally, not the sanity of local _products_ from development.
> > [1] I currently maintain 40+ packages for Debian, but is (slooowly)
> > switching to have them all team-maintained. At first with myself as
> > sole team member but making it easier to let others in. But I do not
> > create a giant packages-formerly-maintained-by-Jonas project but
> > instead smaller ones for related packages (like icecast-related ones
> > or GD-related ones) or even single packages (like yaird that holds
> > both Debian packaging using SVN and upstream source using TLA and a
> > single mailinglist). The main consideration is to group things that
> > would be intering for same developers to mess directly with.
>
> Well good for you.
>
> I'm not sure if I ever will become a DD, not because I lack the
> skills, but more like "Sorry - I have other things to do than discuss
> things about the GFDL and why it cant be included into Debian"
Me too. I am thankful for the devotion some Debian developers (and
non-debian human beings alike) put into defining the rules by which the
rest of of play, but I feel that my contribution is better put in other
parts of the big maze called evolution (because yes, I - maybe
stupidly - believe I play a tiny part in that, and that you do as well).
I am sorry if what I ended up painting was a picture of me as a saint
with packages. I am not, and you, Finn-Arne, know that I haven't worked
with pure excellence in the maintainance of lessdisks. But apart from
possible distorted pictures, what I wanted to tell with the above was
an example of separating packages. I believe the idea is sane - time
will tell if me, Debian in general, and Debian-edu in particular,
realizes that idea.
I similar but perhaps better written description of the same idea is
this: http://wiki.debian.org/CollaborativeMaintenance
It's a wiki page. Please add your encouraging/discouraging comments to
the proposal directly on that page, for a broader discussion than on
this mailinglist.
> I mean, there are people in Debian that spend a lot of time making
> sure other people packages doesn't violate some rule. I'm glad they
> do, because then I can keep on hacking, to get Debian-edu in a state
> were we can release a stable version. It doesn't matter if it's 1 or
> 2 years after the last Stable Debian version was release. lets just
> hope we can deliver before we have to work on pld-stable.
My worry is exactly that: Debian-edu could do so much better than be a
hack on top of Debian.
- Jonas
[1] http://zakame.spunge.org/blog/2005/12/19/gtklp-110/ was included on
http://planet.debian.org/
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDqDsqn7DbMsAkQLgRAm97AKCAGRnHcNAoArQUd/u/ipq6IQ4vDACggjuH
PfHk4YFF76+3VDPPbiIXUfs=
=RGBU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: