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

Re: Why Ubuntu is different, was: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf

Le mer 28 juin 2006 13:14, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Ottavio Caruso writes ("Why Ubuntu is different, was: Minutes of an 
Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf"):
> > --- Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
> > > We all have to acknowledge that Ubuntu is different from other
> > > derivatives by the success
> >
> > and by the fact it's not binary compatible!
> This is an important technical distinction but surely you don't mean
> to say that it's not a legitimate choice for Canonical and Ubuntu to
> make ?

it is legitimate and legal and all what you want. but it also makes the 
cooperation between the two distribution a lot harder:

 * take the not so recent example of Xorg6.9. Ubuntu decided to switch
   to Xorg way sooner than debian. good for'em. as a result, you
   couldn't even build an ubuntu package on debian, because it lacked
   the necessary build-depends.

 * ubuntu having python2.4 by default since 1year+ also causes problems
   in that sense (even if one could argue that nothing really prevented
   debian to switch earlier)...

and I guess there will still be numerous examples of that kind in the 

  As a result, there will always be a lot of differences between the 
debian version of the package, and the ubuntu one (e.g. if ubuntu had 
switched to g++4.1 and not debian or the reverse, all the g++-4.1 
compatibility patches would be present only in one of the distros). and 
as ubuntu (to my perfect despair) is always 6 to 10 month ahead debian, 
this backlog never reduces and makes any automated diff report useless 
and unusable in practice.

  The sole way to make ubuntu and debian really cooperate, without 
letting a bitter feeling to the pure-debian developpers, would be that 
Ubuntu coordinates its transitions with debian. but:

 (1) I'm perfectly aware and conscious that it's not feasible because it
     would mean randomness in Ubuntu schedules which is not an option
     for them ;

 (2) I even think some DD's are openly hostile to such a solution.

that said, I truly believe (with a little sadness I must say) that 
ubuntu and debian are going to achieve some parts of their work twice, 
again and again: transition will be done in Ubuntu, and then in Debian, 
but not taking a lot of advantages or the other distro experience, 
because there will always be differences in how the transitions are 
dealt with (see the python2.4 example...).

  Cooperating (like in tight cooperation) with Ubuntu is IMHO possible 
iff on each packages, there is a period during when no distro has any 
backlog wrt the other. Meaning that excepting some customization 
patches (like an ubuntu/debian logo or theme) the packages should be in 
sync. For a lot of packages, it's clearly not the case, and I hardly 
see why it would be any time soon, it's not in Canonnical interest to 
do so. I'm not really bitter about that.

  Though, I'm saddened[1] by the fact that some people really think that 
scott's patches or any other automatic send of big uncommented patches 
can be called "cooperation", because it's not as soon as the package is 
big enough, because those interdiffs, debdiffs and other big trunk of 
patches won't be usable for them. And guess what, I'm part of the KDE 
team, where the packages are huge (a relibtoolization of the package is 
often 1 to 2Mo-big patch, I defy anyone to look into such diffs the 10 
or 20 lines that could be a useful backport)[2].


 [1] yes saddened, and not pissed like some may think. My previous mail
     in that thread was not me beeing angry at all. That one is not
     either. I'm just thinking the whole ubuntu-debian cooperation thing
     in the current state cannot become something really efficient, and
     I really can live with that, believe me.

 [2] Fortunately, J.Ridell (from kubuntu) sometimes send us useful
     patches, which is nice from him, and means we are way luckier than
     some of other debian packagers in that area. But he can sometimes
     forgot to do so, or think we have caught that already, or, or, ...
     and since we work on different versions, different svn
     repositories, it's just not possible to coordinate in a better way.

·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpFlRLpPkPhx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: