Re: Why Ubuntu is different, was: Minutes of an Ubuntu-Debian discussion that happened at Debconf
On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:49:14PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
It also happens that ubuntu patches are either useless or even
inadequate. In such cases ubuntu'd be better off using plain debian
packages (and I don't understand why they don't).
> Though, I'm saddened 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).
Sometimes, the patches are inexistant. I never found the firefox patches
in scott's diffs. Fortunately, Ubuntu's firefox maintainer *is* a *very*
good example of cooperation and sends his patches that could/should land
in Debian to our BTS. Ian, you rock. That needed to be said.