Re: ubuntu-science
> > I really don't want to be confrontational, or start another useless flame
> > war. But given Debian and debian-science, how can we achieve the best
> > outcomes with the least amount of duplication and waste?
> I agree. That is why I started this discussion. For me it comes down to
> this, we have Debian users who will want to package/patch for Debian and
> Ubuntu users who will want to package/patch for Ubuntu and what we need
> is for the Ubuntu packages/patches to get make it into Debian because
> that is good for everybody. I wanted debian-science to be aware of what
> we are doing over in Ubuntu so that we can communicate/coordinate as
> needed to avoid duplication of work and make sure that we are giving
> Debian/Ubuntu users the best distros we can.
Hello Jordan,
please talk to Mark Shuttleworth about this. it is obvious that the
two disributions are wasting precious resources on duplicative
packaging. if the debian stable gcc (and some other necessary core
libraries) were used by ubuntu (instead of the unstable gcc, etc),
then there would be no need for the ubuntu universe effort (debian
stable packages could be used without modification on ubuntu). this
is a bad decision by ubuntu, and makes life more difficult than need
be for all involved. this has been discussed previously:
http://ianmurdock.com/archives/000244.html
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/11/2335221&tid=163&tid=90&tid=190&tid=106
the reason ubuntu chooses to go this route is to be able to push the
latest software in their releases. however, they can just as easily
use and support http://www.backports.org to obtain the same effect.
mike
Reply to: