On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:49:14PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cooperating (like in tight cooperation) with Ubuntu is IMHO possible > iff on each packages, there is a period during when no distro has any > backlog wrt the other. Meaning that excepting some customization > patches (like an ubuntu/debian logo or theme) the packages should be in > sync. For a lot of packages, it's clearly not the case, and I hardly > see why it would be any time soon, it's not in Canonnical interest to > do so. I'm not really bitter about that.
It also happens that ubuntu patches are either useless or even inadequate. In such cases ubuntu'd be better off using plain debian packages (and I don't understand why they don't). > Though, I'm saddened[1] by the fact that some people really think that > scott's patches or any other automatic send of big uncommented patches > can be called "cooperation", because it's not as soon as the package is > big enough, because those interdiffs, debdiffs and other big trunk of > patches won't be usable for them. And guess what, I'm part of the KDE > team, where the packages are huge (a relibtoolization of the package is > often 1 to 2Mo-big patch, I defy anyone to look into such diffs the 10 > or 20 lines that could be a useful backport)[2]. Sometimes, the patches are inexistant. I never found the firefox patches in scott's diffs. Fortunately, Ubuntu's firefox maintainer *is* a *very* good example of cooperation and sends his patches that could/should land in Debian to our BTS. Ian, you rock. That needed to be said. Cheers, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]