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

Re: third-party packages adding apt sources

On Samstag, 21. Mai 2016 10:53:34 CEST Vincent Bernat wrote:
>  ❦ 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

Yeah, with Owncloud I still hope for changes, but I think it needs to happen 
on both sides and I saw some willingness on side of upstream, but also quite 
some concern. Also upstream project seems changing quite a bit with people 
leaving Owncloud Inc.

> 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.

Okay. I was aware of mozilla.debian.net, but not the others, well, that would 
be also a nice approach for upstream which might be nice to mention on 
upstream landing page.

I never thought this is available on a more general base.

> 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?

No. I don´t think that is a good idea and so I agree with David´s decision 
regarding Owncloud. He spend *a lot* of work which will not end up in Debian 
Stretch, at least not with the current situation.

But in some case I am not sure whether there have been any serious attempts to 
talk and find solutions that work. Maybe currently its not feasible with 
Owncloud, but I do think the current situation is a loss for both upstream and 

> 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

*sigh*, not the first time I heard that Jordan is not fond of Debian packaging 
guidelines and more of a Fedora guy.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: