On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:29:14AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 12:55:22PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > >> This says you are wrong: > >> > >> http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ > > So if I were to diff the Debian archive against the Fedora one, I'd be > > contributing to Fedora? Cool! That'll bolster my CV a bit. > If Fedora were using the same packaging system so that the packaging diffs > were meaningful, you separated out the diffs for the upstream source and > the diffs for packaging, and you continued doing this on a regular basis > so that Fedora maintainers could see what changes were made in Debian that > they might be interested... yes, you would indeed be contributing to > Fedora. As absurd as Andrew's comparison may seem, the diffs distributed from http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ are pretty underwhelming as far as "contributing back to Debian" is concerned. Last time I poked at a package diff there, IIRC the site showed me the diff against the last official sync point with sid, *not* a -- so instead of looking at what Ubuntu had changed, I was looking at n months of the Debian package's own diffs, plus the bits changed by Ubuntu, all thrown in together. :/ So I'm sorry, but automated diffs made available for Debian maintainers to poll are better than *not* having them, but they don't really score many "giving back" points in my book. For that matter, neither does making their package changes publically available in repos that use a SCM that's not (yet?) part of most DD's skillset. There are obviously perfectly valid reasons why they've standardized on the SCM they have, I just have no illusions that it's magic juice that makes the Debian-Ubuntu relationship a perfect partnership. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature