Re: Debian and Non-Free Services
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:
>> No, it just means "This is the canonical location for the packaging
>> repository." Nothing more. There is no information about the workflow
>> preferred by the maintainer.
>
> So, if someone is not using Github's "advanced" features, like pull
> requests and so on, why that person would care about using Github more
> than using Salsa?
Maybe they has already a Github account and does not want to create
another one as long as this is not really necessary. Maybe they is more
familar with the Github user interface than with the Gitlab one. Maybe
they thinks that the repository is better visible if on Github. Maybe
they does the job for an institution which requires to have the
repositories in the institutional organization. Maybe the primary
packaging is done for another distribution (or a special repository).
Sure: most of these are not really strong reasons, and I would always
try to convince people to move to Salsa. And for Debian Astro (as for
many other teams), the requirement is to have the repository on Salsa,
and I am fully behind that.
But that still does not mean that I see reasons why people use Github
for Debian packages and (to come back to the original discussion) having
a repository on Github does *not* automatically mean a preference in the
workflow. So, if someone has the repository there, you can still expect
that BTS patches are welcome. You stated the opposite, that that was all.
>> And, BTW, sometimes contributing to a Debian package requires
>> communication with upstream (creating a bug report or discussing a
>> patch); in this case you cannot avoid the use of non-free services
>> anyway, since you are then bound to their choice of services.
>
> This is bound to the choice of each package maintainer, and has nothing
> to do with the rules for packaging within Debian. In other words: what
> you are discussing is IMO off-topic.
Your (?) argument was: contributing to a Debian package shall not
require to use non-free services. My counter-argument is: contributing
to a Debian package often requires communication with upstream (provide
patches, look for fixes from upstream etc.), where non-free service may
be involved. So, the goal of not requiring non-free services cannot be
reached anyway.
Nevertheless, I see many good reasons why we should enforce people to
use Salse. Homogenizing the packaging a bit makes team maintenance a lot
easier, allows better QA, non-discriminating access (didn't Github
exclude Iran developers a while ago?) etc. But "not enforce people to
use a non-free service when contributing to Debian" is IMO not
convincing.
Cheers
Ole
Reply to: