Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
[ Please note that I'm taking all my hats off for this post, especially ]
[ debian-release ones. ]
On 2009-08-03, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
> What I'm wondering is: why should *we* adapt to ubuntu? why was not
> ubuntu in the first place to accommodate our plans, instead of the
> other way around? Why was not ubuntu that proposed "we freeze when
> Debian freeze" but the opposite or so? since when upstreams make their
> plans on downstreams?
Well, there is a certain hope that upstreams above Debian would also
adapt at some point.
> We receive nothing (or very near to) from Ubuntu; they *do not give us
> back*, why should we schedule to follow on their needs?
I guess you already know it, but just in case you don't:
* http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=origin-ubuntu;users=ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
* http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ubuntu-patch;users=ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
But of course it could be more. Especially contributions from Canonical
employees doing stuff in main. (Some a tad neglecting their packages
in Debian IMHO...)
> Their changes (when they are worth to be applied in Debian too) are
> quite never given back, and the debian maint has to go and extract the
> relevant patch from the usual mess they do on their packages.
True. However the use of a patch system is extremly encouraged in Ubuntu.
So maybe you want to point us to such messes where the bug actually makes
sense to pull back into Debian. (There are quite some deltas in Ubuntu
because of Ubuntu-local changes, with the introduction of dpkg-vendor
they could of course be reduced again.)
> They do not collaborate with us to do changes in Debian first and then
> have them "for free" in ubuntu, and the successful collaborations I've
> seen (mainly in the python area) are just *exceptions* and not the
> rule (as it should be).
True. However sometimes I'd like to see Debian to move more quickly
too. But it doesn't seem easy to me.
> What are my feelings to the whole story? we're trying to make ubuntu
> LTS easier, because WE PREPARE the release, THEY STEAL our packages
> while WE keep improving (fixing bugs and so), THEY do THEIR OWN
> changes to target their goals, and we receive quite *NOTHING* in
> return.
> We do the work, they make the money selling LTS to customers.
I wouldn't reduce this to the selling point, the main question is what
this costs us in terms of users of Debian's stable release. However
main is only a tiny subset that's supported security-wise and everything
else is as best-effort as in Debian.
(I thought I could raise exim4 vs. postfix but it seems that exim4 is in
main in Ubuntu, damn it ;-)
> There was never collaboration between ubuntu and us, how would this
> make things changing? at least are they publicly making any statement
> about actively providing support to debian to make this "experiment"
> something where we are both winning or not?
Never ever! Nevermind teams like clamav that try it. *sigh*
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
Reply to: