❦ 21 mai 2016 10:24 +0200, Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> : > Still, the turn around time between upstream and debian release would be quite > high for Debian stable users, but maybe part of such a collaboration could be > to also provide newer releases via backports. Also… if upstream wants to > release the built packages even quicker to testers or adventurous people, why > not allow them to put newer versions of the official packages into their own > repo while still integrating them with the official repo? For Owncloud for > example this could lead at least to *compatible* packaging. Right now > switching between Debian packages and upstream packages basically destroys a > working Owncloud installation and requires quite some manual interaction to > get things working again. But with compatible packages people could easily > switch between "I use stable packages", "I use backport packages" and "I don´t > care I want the latest I add the upstream repo". Owncloud upstream seems quite hostile towards Debian. But your proposition works with some other upstreams. For example, we are doing all the packaging work for HAProxy, both official and unofficial packages (more backports, backports to Ubuntu) and upstream is quite happy (while in the past, upstream asked us to not ship HAProxy in Debian because it would be too old). http://mozilla.debian.net/ http://haproxy.debian.net/ http://ganeti.debian.net/ I think those packages are ideal to keep everyone happy. People can choose whatever they want and bear with the consequences. And the packages are "top" quality because they are derived from the packages in unstable. In some cases, upstream accepts/wants to host packaging in its own git repository as well and is happy to help (I have librdkafka/kafkacat and ExaBGP as examples). Therefore, they can do their own releases as well. Maybe once we have PPA, we could mainstream a bit the wizard and propose more options. However, the examples above are compatible with our way of packaging. Would we want spend time on packaging stuff that would never go to the Debian archive due to excessive vendoring or unwilling from upstream to be in a stable release? Now, I usually ask upstream if they would be interested to have their software in Debian and then, I propose for them to maintain it or comaintain it. Many are happy with that but some just say no. I don't keep tabs, but here is one example (not my own request): https://github.com/jordansissel/fpm/issues/409 -- If you laid all of our laws end to end, there would be no end. -- Mark Twain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature