[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



Ottavio Caruso dijo [Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:54:18AM -0700]:
> > * Other Debian derivatives are backed by commercial
> > entities and haven't
> >   generated the same level of fear than Canonical.
> 
> I bet!

And for many reasons. They don't usually have such an important (in
size _and_ in skills on both sides) amount or percentage of people
deeply involved in both projects, and they don't have Ubuntu's huge
level of success. 

> > We all have to
> >   acknowledge that Ubuntu is different from other
> > derivatives by the success
> 
> and by the fact it's not binary compatible!

Yes... But that's something bound to happen anyway - Or looking at it
from the other side, we might get to a point that, just by
coincidence, we had a binary compatible release - But libraries and
toolchains move, and their and our releases are made at different
points in the life of every of those components. There is a reason,
after all, for Ubuntu not to be a CDD.

Getting bitter at this detail will get us nowhere. It's a fact of
life, a fact of development. We should, however, seek cooperation (as
this team did when sitting together). I fully agree with Pierre's
answer to this mail (200606282049.14784.madcoder@debian.org), as we
cannot automatize everything - but we _can_ (and we _should_) take
care of providing the right cooperation at the human level. 

Now, forcing humans to work together is not easy, and is bound to
create all kinds of troubles. We cannot of course just appoint Ubuntu
maintainers as comaintainers in each of our packages (besides the
opposition that would gather from _everybody_, that would beg for the
same action for each of the distribution derived from Debian).

Greetings,

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF



Reply to: