Am Dienstag, den 20.12.2005, 18:11 +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > 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: > > > > > > 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. > In an ideal world I'd agree. But what chance do the experts see that what Jonas wrote is possible with the LDAP package? Or do I think it is more complicated than it actually is? Regards David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part