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 Debian. > 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. -- Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.