Re: Uploading to multiple distros
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:17:09PM -0700, Evan Broder wrote: > Hmm...a lot of this discussion seems to be getting caught up in the > ubuntu-devel moderation queue, but I'll try to guess context as best > as I can... The moderation queue doesn't have any outstanding messages for this thread, though maybe it did when you looked. It's also possible that some folks are subscribed to debian-devel but not ubuntu-devel. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110603134911.gm19...@alcor.net
Re: Uploading to multiple distros
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:54:37PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Iain Lane writes ("Re: Uploading to multiple distros"):
> > For "normal" syncs we generally advise not using syncpackage, but it
> > might make sense when doing simultaneous uploads.
>
> Hrm. So syncpackage generates a .changes for uploading to ubuntu from
> the .dsc (which presumably came out of the Debian build). That does
> mean though that the Ubuntu target suite is not visible in the
> changelog of the ultimate Ubuntu package.
That's true for most Ubuntu packages anyway, since the source packages are
copied unmodified from Debian. We've accepted this since the beginning, as
it's certainly not worth modifying the package just to have this be correct.
It's similar to how in Debian, the changelog says the package was uploaded
to unstable but now it's in testing or stable having propagated there
unmodified.
> And if the package is not accepted into the Debian archive for any reason,
> the changelog is very misleading because it looks like a sync from Debian.
True, but perhaps harmless.
> > This at least works when uploading packages prepared for Debian to
> > Ubuntu. I'm not sure how well Debian's infrastructure would cope if the
> > changelog specifies an Ubuntu release.
>
> Debian's archive tools don't look at the changelog either, I think.
> But the .changes file is generated from it. Both Debian and Ubuntu
> will reject a .changes file containing unrecognised suites.
>
> One way to enable simultaneous uploads would be to arrange for
> dpkg-genchanges to filter out suites for "other" distros when
> generating the .changes file. Then you would have the same files
> being uploaded but two different .changes files.
Yes, it seems like it would be straightforward enough to generate two
appropriate .changes files for this case, and it would do the right thing.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110602165233.gc19...@alcor.net
Re: on the role of debian among its derivatives
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:43:44AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > At the same time, In doing all that we should not consider Ubuntu as a > special case, as that would be a mistake. Ubuntu is currently one of a > kind in term of users, but assuming it will be the case forever is > risky. After all, who among us foresaw something like Ubuntu coming 10 > years ago? I surely didn't, but Debian was there. Debian will be there > 10 years from now as well, while I have no idea how many others Ubuntu-s > will be there or what would have happened to the "current" Ubuntu by > then. Ubuntu may not be a "special case" per se, but it is different from (most?) other Debian derivatives in some important ways. I think the number of users is one of the least interesting things about it from a Debian perspective. Things which make Ubuntu interesting among Debian derivatives include: - Tracking unstable This creates more opportunities to share patches immediately - Independent build infrastructure, toolchain and architecture selection This means that Ubuntu may find and fix certain bugs earlier - Releasing on a schedule This makes it easier to know what to expect from Ubuntu at a given time, and plan around it - Open participation and governance This means that Debian developers can influence Ubuntu if they want, in a range of ways including prodding the bits directly and voting in elections - Tracking some upstream projects ahead of Debian This means that there is packaging work in Ubuntu which Debian will want in the future I don't know how rare these are among today's derivatives, but certainly a few years ago, this was not how most derivatives operated. I think it is worth exploring ways that we can take advantage of these differences. I don't have an opinion on the DDPO question, but just to use it as an example: If Ubuntu provides tools and infrastructure to make patches a little easier to access (we do), and there is a reasonable probability that these patches would be beneficial to Debian (matter of opinion) then it makes sense to present this information to Debian developers in an appropriate way. If these same conditions were true for another derivative, the answer would be the same, but as far as I know, Ubuntu is currently a "special case" in this regard. In other words, Debian shouldn't regard Ubuntu specially just because it's Ubuntu, but it absolutely does make sense to work with Ubuntu differently where it is actually different. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100906102823.gh32...@alcor.net
Re: Please write useful changelogs
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:26:00AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Wed, January 16, 2008 10:13, Peter Palfrader wrote: > > Hi Anibal, > > > > > > please write what actually changed, what the issue was about. > > > > | bzip2 (1.0.4-1) unstable; urgency=low > > | > > | * Synchronise with Ubuntu. Closes: #456237 > > > > > > This says about nothing at all. It gives me no more information than > > "Something changed". > > For all fairness, you cut out the rest of the changes below it, which > included the full Ubuntu changelogs where this refers to. It can be > debated if this is a nice style, but the information is there. Not entirely; this version incorporated some (but not all) of the Debian/Ubuntu delta. It's important to be specific. When an Ubuntu package is resynchronized with Debian, the complete list of changes is included in the changelog entry. Ideally, the Debian changelog would copy the same text when merging the changes, making it easy to confirm what has or hasn't been merged. For example: x (vvv-1ubuntu1) edgy; urgency=low * Merged with Debian. Changes are: + Modified build-dep on libfoo to build on edgy. + Added .desktop file. More about our policies and procedures here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Merging -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using sgid binaries to defend against LD_PRELOAD/ptrace()
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 07:18:11PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > What do you think about this approach? I'm well aware that this alone > won't rescue desktop security (getting there is looots of more work), > but one has to start somewhere. I'm not particularly fussed about the race conditions involved with simply using prctl, given that this is strictly a best-effort preventative measure, and we can't expect it to fully protect the user anyway. As a "better than nothing" measure, I think it's less important to aim for perfection. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: APT 0.7 for sid
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 03:51:15PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: > "Michael Vogt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> - automatic removal of unused dependencies moved into libapt so that >> applications like synaptic, python-apt, update-manger etc directly >> benefit from it. A HUGE thanks to Daniel Burrows (one of my personal >> heros) for his work on this feature. >> > > Quick question: this feature is basically the moving of the dependency > tracking of aptitude to libapt? Yes. It is not quite the same implementation, but libapt now provides similar functionality. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A sane guess at default Debian mirror for pbuilder
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 12:25:50AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > After 6 years or so of setting ftp.jp.debian.org as default for > pbuilder, I'm finally determined that it shouldn't stay like this. So > I'd like to have some default guessing to happen. Preferably I don't > want to ask via debconf, since users should have already answered the > question at installation-time. I think the most accurate method would be to scan the list of configured apt sources, and choose the first one which matches the Debian release the user is currently running (via the information from Releases). If the necessary API isn't available yet, this could probably be added to python-apt without too much trouble, and might be useful elsewhere as well. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: packages newer in Ubuntu than in Debian (reduced false positives)
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 02:39:27PM +0200, Eric Lavarde wrote: > Hello Bart, > > is there some kind of agreement between Debian and Ubuntu concerning the > distribution part of the version? The scheme is described here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment#UbuntuPackages which is linked, along with other pertinent information for Debian developers, from here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuForDebianDevelopers > I ask this because you seem to assume that: > X.Y.Z-K (Debian) << X.Y.Z-L (Ubuntu) If K < L, yes, this is true. > X.Y.Z-K (Debian) << X.Y.Z-KubuntuA (Ubuntu) This should always be true as well. It is sometimes possible that A.B.D-1 is "older" than A.B.C-2ubuntu1 (where Ubuntu has continued to patch an older version due to a freeze), but for purposes of identifying out-of-date packages, the above should be reasonable assumptions. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: patches.ubuntu.com and the Debian PTS derivatives
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 11:30:32PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 4/2/07, Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >As some of you may have noticed, the patches.ubuntu.com website and > >equivalent mailing of changes to the Debian PTS and ubuntu-patches > >mailing list has been offline, or at least intermittent, for a few > >weeks. > > > >This was caused by the hosting machine running out of disk space, and > >the Debian mirror we were using being partially incomplete for a while. > > > >The latter problem seems to have been fixed, and the Canonical sysadmins > >are working on the former. > > > > Hi Scott, > > Do you have any update for us on this issue? The admins have been swamped with the Ubuntu 7.04 release, but with that out of the way, this should be back online soon (it's needed for beginning work on 7.10 as well). -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to maintain packaging files for multiple distributions in the same tree?
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:07:27PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> In Ubuntu you have a parallel version. You split of from the main > >> trunk but you follow parallel to it at a small distance. For every new > >> main version you want a new ubuntu version. Ubuntu versions aren't a > >> branch but rather a filter on top of the main release. The main > >> release changes, the filter remains constant (hopefully). > > > > The meaning of your "filter" analogy above isn't clear to me. By "Ubuntu > > versions" do you mean "releases of Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu versions of packages > > derived from Debian"? > [...] > Distribution filter: (with patches going both ways) > > +--+--+--+--- Debian > \ \/\ > +--+--+--+- Ubuntu What you have described is a branch, in revision control terminology. > > It is work, yes, but in many cases it is necessary, and we do quite a bit of > > it at present. > > Hopefully the graphic above makes it clear why a branch isn't the most > helpfull construct for it. Unfortunately I know of no RCS that has > something better for this kind of parallel developement. This is a fundamental feature of Bazaar and other modern distributed RCS. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How to maintain packaging files for multiple distributions in the same tree?
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:20:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > In stable/testing/unstable you have releases with a fixed version that > can only split of from the main trunk. Any change to stable/testing > MUST be made special for the old version in stable/testing and forks > off the main developement on its own course. There is no developement > going on in stable/testing, just bugfixes. You often have to prepare > backports for patches from unstable to share fixes. > > In Ubuntu you have a parallel version. You split of from the main > trunk but you follow parallel to it at a small distance. For every new > main version you want a new ubuntu version. Ubuntu versions aren't a > branch but rather a filter on top of the main release. The main > release changes, the filter remains constant (hopefully). The meaning of your "filter" analogy above isn't clear to me. By "Ubuntu versions" do you mean "releases of Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu versions of packages derived from Debian"? > Branches don't work so well for ubuntu as you have to pull over the > changes from the main branch to the ubuntu branch on every > release. Which means (unneccessary) work. It is work, yes, but in many cases it is necessary, and we do quite a bit of it at present. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 04:02:04PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > > - X ran with the wrong resolution (typical i915 problem) and with the wrong > > dpi setting > > Can't speak to that; my ATI Firegl video worked automatically out of > the box --- with 3D accelerated graphics automatically. That's an interesting observation, as Ubuntu 6.06 LTS does not configure X to use the proprietary driver by default. If that device worked out of the box, it was due to Ubuntu having a newer version of the open source ATI driver. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote: > Then lets look at how stable ubuntu stable is or is not. I know I've > seen posts on these lists suggesting that ubuntu stable tends to pull > in things from debian unstable[1] and is therefore less stable. Ubuntu does not pull packages from Debian unstable into its stable releases, and never has. We pull packages from unstable into our development branch, which is then progressively frozen, stabilized and released. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 05:17:22PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Sunday 30 July 2006 16:21, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > I agree with you that there is this kind of technological competition among > > derivatives, and so long as it is all free software, Debian and its > > derivatives all stand to gain from it. > > You can't have it both ways; it is either competition or cooperation. I tend > to agree with your previous message that it is some sort of cooreration, > since it is hard to compete with yourself being Debian and Ubuntu developer > at the same time (well unless one is living in some sort of splitted > personality ;-). ... or you claim that it is cooreration is some areas, and > competition in others ? I don't think it's so simple. It's difficult to characterize such a relationship as purely competitive when everything we create is free to be shared, and we're not playing a zero-sum game. Is the user who prefers Ubuntu a loss to Debian? I don't think so. Is the developer who prefers to contribute to Debian a loss to Ubuntu? Certainly not. Are there developers who contribute to both Debian and Ubuntu, in different ways? Absolutely. This doesn't mean that they're competing with themselves, though their contributions to one may compete with others' contributions to the other. Debian will appeal to some more than Ubuntu, and vice versa. They will innovate in different ways and for different reasons. Sometimes they will choose different approaches to solve the same problem, and in this respect, they are in competition. In some cases, one of the approaches will be proven superior overall, while in others, each will be better suited to its parent. This applies to social behaviour as well as to technological pursuits. The metaphor of an ecosystem is apt: in some areas of overlap, one strategy will dominate, while in others, an equilibrium will develop. The diversity of the system is a source of strength, as it lends a resistance to attack and starvation. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:34:12PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:49:07AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > When Ubuntu leads to users having ideas like the one in the parent post, > > > this is manifestly false. > > Rather than blaming Ubuntu, it's more constructive to educate the user > > community about the (useful) role that derivatives play. > > Personally, I think it's fair to say Debian and Ubuntu are in > "competition" in some areas, and I don't think it's something to be > ashamed of on either side. Why shouldn't Ubuntu and Debian compete with > each other to better serve their users, both actual and potential? As > long as it's done in a cooperative manner, and with both of us willing to > share our successes with each other and learn from each others mistakes, > how is a bit of friendly competition anything but a good thing? > > For comparison, debootstrap and cdebootstrap are "competing" > implementations of the same idea, and both try to win over users by doing > the same job better, according to various criteria. I don't think > cdebootstrap would've existed without debootstrap, and debootstrap's > certainly benefited from copying some of the features cdebootstrap has. I > think there's room enough for that sort of competition in Debian, and I > think there's room enough for derivatives to try competing with official > Debian releases in various manners too. I agree with you that there is this kind of technological competition among derivatives, and so long as it is all free software, Debian and its derivatives all stand to gain from it. I was objecting to Joey's assertion that "Ubuntu leads to users having ideas like the one in the parent post". The theme of the parent post was that Debian doesn't care about the needs of its users. I feel that this is an inaccurate characterization, firstly, but it's unreasonable to blame Ubuntu for a user getting this impression based on the fact that Ubuntu met their individual needs better than Debian did. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 05:08:57AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote: > Also remember that non-free drivers typically aren't installed automatically > in Debian, whereas IIRC they are automatically installed in Ubuntu. The following non-free drivers are installed by default in Ubuntu: - madwifi (Atheros) - ipw3945 userland - AVM ISDN - fglrx (ATI) - nvidia Of those, only the first two are used automatically; the others require explicit action from the user. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 06:38:57PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > One of them is that Ubuntu developers get paid. That makes a huge > difference, as they can devote a lot more time each day to their work > than, say, a student who also needs to work besides his university duties > to stay afloat, and can only dedicate a few hours on a weekend to Debian. A majority of Ubuntu developers are also volunteers, and there are in fact Debian developers who are paid for their efforts, both in whole and in part. I wouldn't be at all surprised if more people in total were paid to work on Debian than on Ubuntu, especially given that many developers contribute to Debian as at least a part of their professional responsibilities. While Canonical's sponsorship does represent a huge contribution to Ubuntu, the difference between Debian and Ubuntu is much more than simply funding. > This is one of the cases where different interests come into play. A lot > of modern hardware requires binary-only firmware to operate. A > distribution with a clear end-user focus such as Ubuntu can easily > strike a deal with hardware manufacturers to get the necessary > permissions; it may not be allowed to derive a distribution from Ubuntu > that also includes these drivers as the license on them prohibits > redistribution. Ubuntu does not obtain special licensing terms for any firmware. All of the firmware included in Ubuntu is freely redistributable, and in fact, I believe all of it is available either upstream in Linux or in Debian non-free. > > E. Mr. Hess has a nice supermarket argument but can't see that Debian > > needs to steal a few things from Ubuntu, ie it goes both ways. > > Not quite. Ubuntu's big advantages are specifically in places where it > has been adapted to specific use cases; stealing those would lead to the > exact same problems that I outlined above under "taking suggestions". Yes, many of the differences between Ubuntu and Debian fall into this category. > > Unfortunatly I think you just aren't smart enough to read > > the writing on the wall that there is a reason Ubuntu has been for a > > while now such a more popular distro then us. > > Yes, it's called "marketing". I think you were much closer to the mark above. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > When Ubuntu leads to users having ideas like the one in the parent post, > this is manifestly false. Similar comments have been made by the uninformed in the past, before Ubuntu even existed, with Red Hat, SuSE, Linspire, etc. in its place. It's normal and healthy for there to be projects which do things differently from Debian, but users will sometimes interpret this as a shortcoming of Debian, which can't go in every direction at once. Rather than blaming Ubuntu, it's more constructive to educate the user community about the (useful) role that derivatives play. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:46:57AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Debian is a project of volunteers. I am a Debian volunteer. I'm not > going to write something just because you gripe at me about it. I have > no obligation to you. I will work on things that are interesting to me. Absolutely agreed. One small addition though: > Ubuntu has paid employees, which changes the equation entirely. There are more than a few Debian developers who are employed to work on Debian; they are simply less visible (and possibly more fragmented, working for different organizations) than the developers who work for Canonical on Ubuntu. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why does Ubuntu have all the ideas?
Your message came off as somewhat accusatory toward Debian, and positioned Debian and Ubuntu as rivals engaged in a struggle. I'll try to address your points individually, but please try to take a less inflammatory stance. The relationship between Debian and Ubuntu is a sensitive topic with some, and this kind of portrayal can easily lead to unproductive arguments. I'm responding to this message primarily in my role representing Ubuntu, but having been a Debian developer for several years as well, some of my views stem from a Debian perspective as well. On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:02:57AM -0600, Katrina Jackson wrote: > To Whom It May Concern, > >I am concerned Debian isn't trying to meet people's needs enough.You > seem to have so many more people working for you, and you both use the same > format for things, so it doesn't make sense to me why you can't keep up with > Ubuntu. Debian and Ubuntu have different goals, both at the project level and in terms of features. It may be that Ubuntu meets your personal needs better than Debian does, but this doesn't mean that Debian doesn't care about people's needs. It may be that they care about the needs of a different class of user, or are simply focusing on different goals at different times. You shouldn't take this as an indication that Debian isn't succeeding. > C. You seem to worry only about packaging. You push people to package. > But you don't focus on making your OS better. Ubuntu has made so many nice > features for their OS that you don't seem to do. I really don't know why. > I think you need to emphsise less packaging and more focus on making your > current OS better for people. Why does Ubuntu have to have all the great > ideas for their users? One example: They have a pop up telling you updates > are ready. Now maybe you now have this feature, I don't know, but I see > great ideas like this every six months with Ubuntu, and I see nothing from > debian. Except apt, but man, one nice thing a decade is pretty slow. Packaging is a function which Debian fulfills better than any other distribution today. Without the packages built and maintained by Debian developers, Ubuntu could not exist, much less build more specialized distributions based on this platform. Your specific example actually takes the form of a package, called update-notifier. This package and its supporting components were sponsored by Canonical and produced for Ubuntu, but is now also a part of Debian. You should only need to install it in order to get similar functionality. > D. Going back to C., doesn't is concern you you have so many programmers > but so few good new Ideas for your OS compared to Ubuntu that will help > your users? How do they have 10 times the good ideas you seem to. And > furthermore, when a good idea is presented to them they say, "good idea, > we should impliment that" not "there's plenty of documantation, do it > yourself". This is much the same as your point B., and my thoughts are the same. Debian is doing a great deal of good work, though it may not be along the lines of what you have in mind. > E. Going back to the last statement, I could write an entire email on how > people think you guys are so unapproachable and so down right mean to users > who make these suggestions. Users' concerns mean nothing to you. ***If > they did you would be spending as much time as Ubuntu coming up with great > ideas to revoultionize your OS to better meet people's needs*** Why are you > so mean? I know you will either ignore this letter or rip my head off, but > somebody needs to tell you. I have to agree that there has historically been a difficult relationship between the Debian community and new or uninformed users. The culture has been such that innocent mistakes and ignorance have been met with more aggression than understanding. Many people involved with Debian have acknowledged this problem, though, and are working to correct it. I don't think this reputation is as deserved as it may have been in the past. The idea of a Code of Conduct for Debian, inspired by that of Ubuntu, has gained some support, including that of the runner-up for this year's project leader election. Consider that in discussing this issue, it is you who are hypocritically taking an aggressive stance, and attacking Debian rather than working cooperatively. Why not think about ways to improve the situation, propose them, and even help to implement those ideas? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Challenge: Binary free uploading
On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:14:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > For starters, we'd need a *lot* of hardware to be able to do all these > builds. Many of them will fail, because there *will* be people who will > neglect to test their builds, and they will hog the machine so that > other people (who do test properly) have to wait a long time for their > build to happen. I don't think that Anthony was suggesting doing the test builds on all architectures, but only one (presumably i386). This would not require much in the way of hardware resources at all. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 10:19:02PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > So by default it is assumed that I should make Ubuntu's work and dig > into these patches to see if some pieces should be applied into Debian? > No thanks, I am getting tired of all those Debian developers who are > more interested in improving Ubuntu than Debian, and just added the > following rules to my .procmailrc: > :0 > * ^From.*(ubuntu|canonical).com > /dev/null > > Denis, pissed off > PS: No, I am not joking Raphael ensured us that this would be an opt-in notification, and we agreed to provide the data feed for it under this assumption. If there was a configuration error which caused this not to be the case, please try not to overreact, be patient and allow it to be corrected. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:59:21PM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote: > I hope this special treatment has nothing to do with the sun-ubuntu deal > announced a few days ago. What relationship could you possibly suspect between this event and processing of this package in Debian's queue/new? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 01:15:44PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote: > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > >On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote: > >>The following is based on premises that portability is good and that > >>POSIX is a standard. A proposal. > > > >I didn't see a concrete proposal in your email, only information about > >where to find gnusolaris build logs. Can you elaborate? > > > > Minimally, package maintainers and developers could take a look on our logs > and see if there's anything wrong. If there is, in many cases the fix is > obvious. Because Debian and Ubuntu developers may not have access to a similar build environment, it will be difficult for them to help you in this way. Even if the first error is fixed, they will need to wait for you to build the package again to see if it builds. I expect that most maintainers won't be interested in working this way. It makes more sense for the Nexenta community to fix these problems and make the patches available to other distributions and upstream. If your intention is to invite the Debian and Ubuntu developer communities to participate in this way, perhaps a good step would be to offer them access to a porting machine where they can help you with this work if they are interested? > Ideally though, there'd be an augmented policy of package acceptance, > reflecting the fact that the packages with "Architecture: any" should build > and run on one of the Debian POSIX-compliant systems. NexentaOS is > certainly one such system. To help implement this new policy we could "plug" > our AutoBuilder [1] into the existing build environment. If we find that it is feasible to get the current packages in Debian to meet this standard, then we can consider extending policy to recommend or mandate it at some point in the future, but to do this before attempting the experiment would be premature. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: Better portability for package maintainers
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Alex Ross wrote: > The following is based on premises that portability is good and > that POSIX is a standard. A proposal. I didn't see a concrete proposal in your email, only information about where to find gnusolaris build logs. Can you elaborate? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and UDEV
The rest of the Linux distribution world is using udev with the current semantics and has not crumbled. If you don't like the current semantics, I understand, but that shouldn't stand in the way of its adoption. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and UDEV
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 12:19:35AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You don't need to wait for a particular event to be finished processing; > > instead you should wait for the resource you actually need to become > > available, e.g. a device node. > > And how do you detect the resource not becoming available? With a timeout. > Say I add a fsck script that runs before the final device node is > created for any disk that gets added. That could take way longer than > even the 3 minute timeout of the udevsettle. Why (and, for that matter, how) would you want to try to operate on the device before the device node is created? This seems rather contrived. > > It would be useful to add a simple utility for this to debianutils or > > similar so that it doesn't need to be reimplemented in so many places. > > I don't see any way to make this utility without having a race > condition as it is. udev has no concept of "this rule is finished" > afaik. It may be possible to check that all pending udev events have completed. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and UDEV
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:14:48PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't see it as a general issue either; if you have problems of this type, > > you should report them to the bug tracking system so that they can be fixed. > > Debian as an organization can't hope to test all of the hardware available > > in the market, so we rely on feedback from folks such as yourself to let us > > know when there is a problem. > > The most hideous problem of hotplug/udev is the following: > > You can't wait for an hotplug/udev event to be done processing. That > is always done asynchron without any feedback of completion. You don't need to wait for a particular event to be finished processing; instead you should wait for the resource you actually need to become available, e.g. a device node. It would be useful to add a simple utility for this to debianutils or similar so that it doesn't need to be reimplemented in so many places. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wrong version in gconf2 dependencies
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:56:36AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 11:31, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > On Apr 26, Mike Bird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In working on (unsupported) dist-upgrades from Ubuntu/Breezy > > > to Debian/Etch I ran into a lot of failures due to missing > > FYI, this will probably horribly break the udev configuration. > > There may well be situations where Udev breaks but I haven't seen > them. There is likely to be a wide variety of non-obvious breakage resulting from an operation like this. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wrong version in gconf2 dependencies
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 09:14:40AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: > How else should I report this, if at all? > > In working on (unsupported) dist-upgrades from Ubuntu/Breezy > to Debian/Etch I ran into a lot of failures due to missing > gconf-schemas. A lot of gnome software uses gconf-schemas > in postinst but depends on gconf2 >= 2.10.1-2. gconf-schemas > seems to have arrived in gconf2 somewhat later than 2.10.1-2. > > Examples: eog, gnome-system-tools > > I really don't want to file separate bugs against every gnome > package. > > (The workaround is to upgrade gconf2 early.) I believe many of these dependencies are probably generated by dh_gconf, so fixing debhelper and rebuilding the packages should address most of the issue. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: removal of svenl from the project
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 07:26:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 05:56:10PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > I hadn't replied to the bug report because I wasn't involved in the > > Ubuntu kernel at the point when it was filed, so I didn't reply there. > > When you brought my attention to it, I pointed out two issues that you > > could fix in seconds. I had none of the hardware in question, and didn't > > want to spend time trying to work out if there was some subtle reason > > for the code being there. There was certainly no effort to sabotage your > > platform, and I haven't heard any sort of apology for your accusations. > > Well, i think that benc comment about "nobody should use oldworld's by now" is > particularly clueless, and you in particular did know better than that. Fortunately, that isn't what was said, and you should stop placing quotation marks around it. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: /lib/modules//volatile on tmpfs
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 06:20:47PM +0100, Sergio Callegari wrote: > As far as I know, it should exist in Debian too. No, it doesn't. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 04:16:20PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman: > > > One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries > > included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is > > available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. > > Would this really be a problem if the minimal Python implementation > does not install an interpreter under /usr/bin? I cannot speak on behalf of upstream on this point; I can only summarize our previous discussions. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:04:25PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate > >> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too" > >> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, > >> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. > > > > Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has > > been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. > > Ok; Joe Wreschnig just said that "I would like to write scripts in X" > is certainly not a good enough reason to add X to Essential. It > sounds as if you are in disagreement with him; have I understood > correctly.? I have said repeatedly that I am not expressing an opinion about what Debian does with regard to python-minimal. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to answer questions about what we did in Ubuntu and why, and I think I've done that thoroughly now. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:48:11AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex > > and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. > > This is surely true; Steve Langasek asked if this was a real issue in > Ubuntu or merely a potential issue. > > Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate > perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too" > implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python, > emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want. Ubuntu developers would like to be able to use Python. So far there has been no demand whatsoever for LISP derivatives in this context. > Or, we say "we aren't going to support *every* high-level language" > and stick to one. We aren't going to support every high-level language, but we do support more than one in Ubuntu. This, of course, has no particular bearing on whether Debian follows suit. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > > If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would > > > > > > a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python > > >that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind) > > > b) include only the modules needed by the package(s). > > > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part of base, > > but not full python, and this is something that python upstream explicitly > > objects to. > > It implies no such thing. If you won't acknowledge that, then know that upstream also object to the name "python-base" for something which has a stripped-down standard library. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the > outcome. It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, > > > "Maintainer" > > > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the > > > on-going well being of a package". As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the > > > MOTUs > > > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. > > > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of > > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and > > propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific > > motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch > > it. > > But if a problem in a package in Ubuntu universe does appear, whose > responsibility[1][2] is it to fix it? Whatever the answer to that question, > also answers the question "what should go in the Maintainer: field?". And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized basis, across the entire set of packages). However, this is not the same thing as saying "the maintainer of this package is the MOTU team", especially not in the same sense as "[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the maintainer of libapache2-mod-auth-mysql". > > By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions > > like "why is the package set up this way?", "what are your plans for it?", > > etc., while the MOTU team are not. > > What the? By that logic, the upstream author should be in the Maint: field, > since they're in the *best* position to answer those questions for the > majority content of the package. At any rate, in most cases the answer, > from the Debian maintainer, to the first question would either be "Dunno, > can't remember" or "the previous maintainer was a known crack addict", while > the answer to the second would be " make sure it doesn't break, I > suppose" -- none of whick are particularly more interesting answers than > what you'd get from the MOTUs. If I were to accept your declaration that the Debian maintainer is equally ill-equipped to discuss the package, then it follows that they are an equally valid value for the Maintainer field. There really isn't any point in arguing our individual views, though. What I'm interested in is what will satisfy a majority of Debian developers, and the proposed poll seems like the closest we'll get to that. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a > closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a > conversation. I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've merely participated in the discussion and respected Mail-Followup-To. I won't even start to discuss which end of the "friendly" stick I've been on so far. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of > > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and > > The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you > simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking > the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, > since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their > packages. I've already addressed all of your points repeatedly in this thread. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config > scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python > bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?) No, not yet. The promotion to Essential needed to happen prior to writing any such scripts. The python bindings for debconf are, of all places, in the 'debconf' package. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Derived distributions and the Maintainer: field
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:12:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field > >that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit: > >NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field unchanged > > Good point. If Ubuntu wishes to keep the Maintainer field the same, but > use NMU version numbers and add a "Changed-By:" field which is different, that > seems perfectly reasonable as well. There is no Changed-By: field in source or binary packages which are NMUd in Debian, and Ubuntu *does* use something quite similar (though not identical) to NMU version numbers. An Ubuntu-specific upload of foo 1.0-1 is versioned 1.0-1ubuntu1. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer" > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the > on-going well being of a package". As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs > have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions like "why is the package set up this way?", "what are your plans for it?", etc., while the MOTU team are not. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:32:06AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > I'll assume that python2.4-minimal Recommending: python2.4 won't be > enough. I'd imagine not. > How about this? The current python2.4-minimal package contains > /usr/bin/python2.4. We would move this to /usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter > so that it is no longer present on the standard search path. The full > python2.4 package would contain a symlink /usr/bin/python2.4 -> > /usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter to make the interpreter available on the > path. python-minimal Depends on python2.4-minimal and contains the > symlink /usr/bin/python -> /usr/bin/python2.4. In addition it would > contain the symlink /usr/lib/python/interpreter -> > /usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter. Packages that currently Depend on > python but use only minimal functionality could Depend on python-minimal > but they would have to run python using /usr/lib/python/interpreter. > The stripped down python interpreter would be "hidden" from command-line > users but would still be available for use by packaged programs. It seems a bit obscure to me, but honestly, I can't speak for upstream on this point, only the ones that I specifically discussed with them. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential? > Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly? Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to express such a dependency relationship, and so only Essential packages can be relied upon to be available. One example is .config maintainer scripts, some of which are quite complex and worth writing in a higher-level language than shell. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:55AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > Just to clarify, because I'm also confused and genuinely curious... you > guys use the minimal package during bootstrapping or something and then by > the end of the installation process you will necessarily have the full > python somehow. Is this correct? python is part of the base system in Ubuntu. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:42:57PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Programs that want to use python can assume that python-minimal is
> there (since it's Essential), and since python-minimal is never
> installed without python also installed, they can also now assume that
> all of python, including foobie, is there.
>
> What am I missing?
The difference between "installed" ("was installed initially") and
"installed" ("is installed now"). The compromise we struck with upstream
was that we would not give the user a system with a "broken" Python. If
they create one on their own, that's their business (and they could strip it
down themselves anyway).
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:38:55PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but > > > not us. > > > > Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base. > > Ah, ok. Then why bother with the package at all then? Why not just make all > of python Essential: yes? Because it has additional dependencies on packages which are not Essential: yes, and because -minimal is much smaller (if someone explicitly uninstalls it, along with the standard packages which depend on it), we can assume they are accepting the consequences). -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > That said, I don't really understand why it's Ok for Ubuntu to do this but > not us. Ubuntu never installs python-minimal without python, even in base. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 12:45]: > > Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part > > of base, but not full python, and this is something that python > > upstream explicitly objects to. > > Why? Surely having a sub-set of python is better than nothing at all, no? One of the appealing things about the Python language is their "batteries included" philosophy: users can assume that the standard library is available, documentation and examples are written to the full API, etc. When it's broken into pieces, they get complaints and support requests from their user community when things don't work the way they should. It is already a source of frustration to them that we don't install python-dev with python. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Derivatives and the Version: field (Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:47:22PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > In any case, I want to note what has just happened here. You received > a clear, easily implemented, request about what would be a wonderful > contribution, and which is (from the Debian perspective) entirely > non-controversial. > > Your response was not to say "yes, great!" but rather to argue about > whether these are things Debian should care about, and protest that > they are not valuable and take too much work. What I saw was that a discussion with a practical point (treatment of the Maintainer field) was sidetracked because you started to focus on the Version field instead, and I asked you to justify your concern. Furthermore, regardless of whether you think it is easy, a global change of the Version field is not something that I can even consider making in the middle of our short release cycle, so it really isn't much of a priority at this time. The Maintainer field is something that I may be able to do something about, and I'm awaiting the results of Jeroen's poll on that. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would > > a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python >that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to mind) > b) include only the modules needed by the package(s). Please don't do this; it implies that python-minimal would be part of base, but not full python, and this is something that python upstream explicitly objects to. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:21:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:59PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for > > > programs > > > in the base system > > > * allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier > > Please note that it is against upstream's explicit wishes for -minimal to be > > installed for users as part of a package selection which does not also > > include the full python package. > > URL? I have trouble distinguishing that from "Upstream says python-minimal > must Depend: on python." I don't have a URL; this came out of a discussion in person with Anthony Baxter, though, who you could email for confirmation if you like. The Python community dislikes the idea of people being given a /usr/bin/python that doesn't include the standard library. This causes confusion for their users. > > In Ubuntu, we've split the package in order to make -minimal essential, > > but never install it alone (both are part of base). > > Then what's the benefit of having python(-minimal) be essential at all? So that the Python language, and select pieces of the standard library, can be used in contexts where only essential packages can be relied upon to be available. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:08:32PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:00:53PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
> > Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
> > which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs). If it were
> > essential to version the packages differently, I would say that the source
> > package versions should be changed as well. Bin-NMUs are more trouble than
> > they are worth.
>
> The Source-Version problem will not affect Ubuntu because they rebuild
> both binary: all and binary: any packages. The issue with Debian style
> binNMU is that we only rebuild the binary: any packages that will have
> a different source version than the binary: all packages.
> You just need to bump the version before rebuilding the packages and
> that's it. It is not different from rebuilding the packages after a
> minor change.
You're reiterating what I've said: binNMUs won't really work; updating the
source package version would be the more reasonable way to accomplish the
same goal (though there are definitely tradeoffs there as well, and I think
we have more important issues to tackle at this point).
> > Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed,
> > though? This is only an issue when mixing packages between different
> > derivatives, which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very
> > much inclined to try to un-break it in this particular way, given that
> > it's non-trivial.
>
> At least to avoid namespace conflict between Debian and Ubuntu .deb files.
That seems like an abstract goal; what actual problem would be solved?
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:14:17PM +0100, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in > python. That is a "ease of development" helper for ubuntu. All of those can be done today using dependencies. .config scripts, for example, cannot. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they > >box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field > >unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years* > >before Ubuntu even existed? This never seemed to bother anyone, and > >personally, I don't think it's a big deal either. > > Xandros does not employ a significant number of people in important > single-point-of-failure-positions in Debian, most notably not the > people who are notoriously known for not doing the job they have > volunteered for. Apart from its questionable accuracy, this is a red herring and has nothing to do with how derivatives should treat the Maintainer field. > Additionally, Xandros doesn't have nearly the user base that Ubuntu > has, and they are not nearly as loud PR-wise as Ubuntu is. Likewise, I don't think that the popularity of a derivative is an important consideration on this point. What exactly do you consider "loud" PR? Ubuntu doesn't exactly mount campaigns; what messaging there is is by word of mouth. Other Debian derivatives buy ad space on Google keywords like "Debian". -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:25:45AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > I was unable to locate the quote, but it seems that the quote is/could > be taken liteally. Why not modify the quote to state that it is > metaphorical by using something like 'Every Debian developer is an > Ubuntu developer in the same vein as the quote from JFK when he was in > Berlin' or 'Every Debian developer is an Ubuntu developer in the sense > that all of the Debian developers work is used as a basis for the work of > Ubuntu developer' This already happened. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > * allowing us to easily use python (as well as C, C++ and perl) for programs > in the base system > > * allowing us to provide python early on installs to make users happier Please note that it is against upstream's explicit wishes for -minimal to be installed for users as part of a package selection which does not also include the full python package. In Ubuntu, we've split the package in order to make -minimal essential, but never install it alone (both are part of base). > I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in) > python2.4-minimal though. We basically reviewed the available modules and picked out the ones that we thought would be useful in an Essential context, with a goal of having no external non-Essential dependencies. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:16:32PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Some reasons: > > > * compatability with Ubuntu -- so that packages can be easily ported back > > and forth between us and them; I expect most of the work ubuntu might do > > on improving boot up will require python-minimal > > But it really doesn't provide compatibility with Ubuntu unless it's > Essential, given that no packages from Ubuntu are going to be depending on > it (being Essential)? Correct. Its only purpose is to allow things which can rely only on Essential packages to be written in Python. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 05:57:49PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > mdz writes: > > It is considered to be in poor taste to report bugs to bugs.debian.org > > which have not been verified on Debian... > > I should think that in most cases by the time you've produced a patch that > fixes a bug in an Ubuntu package you would be able to tell whether or not > the bug is likely to be present in the corresponding Debian package. If > you are wrong once in a while it's hardly the end of the world. The context of my statement was bugs, not patches. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:47:05PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, then I must have misunderstood something. So it is clear then
> that Ubuntu does recompile every package.
To clarify explicitly:
- Ubuntu does not use any binary packages from Debian
- Most Ubuntu source packages are identical copies from Debian, while some are
modified for Ubuntu
- All Ubuntu binary packages are built for Ubuntu in Ubuntu chroots
> When you recompile packages, change their version number just as
> Debian does for binary-NMUs? That is, the first binary compile for
> an arch gets the same version number as the original source, but all
> future recompilations, which would include those done by Ubuntu or
> anyone else, should get a modified version number.
I believe there are still packages which break when bin-NMU'd (e.g.,
Depends: = ${Source-Version}), and there are parts of our infrastructure
which do not support them (Ubuntu doesn't do bin-NMUs). If it were
essential to version the packages differently, I would say that the source
package versions should be changed as well. Bin-NMUs are more trouble than
they are worth.
Why is it now important to you that the version numbers be changed, though?
This is only an issue when mixing packages between different derivatives,
which already breaks in other subtle ways, so I'm not very much inclined to
try to un-break it in this particular way, given that it's non-trivial.
> Will you establish an Ubuntu policy that all bugs found, whether
> patched or not, which might exist in the upstread Debian package,
> should always be reported to the BTS?
The "might" here is a problem. It is considered to be in poor taste to
report bugs to bugs.debian.org which have not been verified on Debian, and
attempting to confirm every bug is not feasible for us (we can't even come
close to confirming every bug on Ubuntu).
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:43:53PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only > > reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes, > > not to support stripped-down Python installations. > > Ah, the law of unintended consequences. > > You can't stop that; you can't say "here's the package, but nobody > should use it". Fortunately, no one attempted to do that. What we did do was discuss our plan with Python upstream and ensure that our treatment of the package satisfied their concerns. It's amazing what can be accomplished when both parties actually want to come to an agreement. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact > >> > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any > >> > such tool for modifying them. > >> > >> Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to > >> change the maintainer field with that. > > > > Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that > > context. > > Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do! Please show me which part of wanna-build or sbuild modifies a source package. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:18:22AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Oh. There might be a misunderstanding: No binary package is taken from > > debian, only source packages. This means that EVERY package is being > > rebuilt in ubuntu on buildds, including arch: all packages. The output > > of apt-cache shows the field 'Origin' to indicate that this is not a > > package built on debian systems. > > Good grief, and Matt Zimmerman said the exact opposite recently, > saying that Ubuntu does not rebuild every package. I said no such thing, and would appreciate your retraction on this point. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Given that python-minimal is Essential: yes in Ubuntu, the *only* > > use for this package in Debian (given that there would be no > > packages in the wild that depend on it -- the definition of Essential > > is that you don't need to depend on it) is if we make it Essential: yes > > as well. > > I don't see why. If python-minimal were included in Debian then some > packages that currently Depend on python could (if their needs are > minimal) Depend on python-minimal instead. This would be an improvement, This is something that Python upstream explicitly does not want; the only reason for creating python-minimal was so that it could be Essential: yes, not to support stripped-down Python installations. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact > > is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any > > such tool for modifying them. > > Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to > change the maintainer field with that. Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that context. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:01:31AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]: > > I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a > > world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement > > on behalf of the project, and that malicious intent is far from the only (or > > even the most common) reason for errors. It could very well be that Mark or > > someone else originally wrote "from Debian" and the quote was transcribed > > incorrectly. > > Then pretty please fix it. You surely understand that it isn't appropriate for me to change a quote which is attributed to someone else. However, I did ask Mark to clarify it, and he has done so, so hopefully you can rest easy and this subthread can die. > > I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. What press release, and > > how does d-d-a enter into it? > > You do read d-d-a, don't you? I am refering to buxy's mail, which > stirred this all up. I did, but I have no idea what you meant to say by "a press release so you can add d-d-a to your announce lists", or how this relates to the mail that you cite. Perhaps you could rephrase it more clearly? The grammar in the original is difficult to parse. > > Do you not read debian-devel-announce? > > Yes, I do. Again, I cite myself: > > >> I wonder why I never received any bugreport about my stupid and wrong > >> C++ transition here... > > Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality > in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes? Please, be reasonable. You were notified about the existence of the patch in an announcement on a mailing list that Debian developers are required to read. Don't blame Ubuntu because you didn't use this information. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs > > don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. > > Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new > version numbers. The source packages don't. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > The full quote is "We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that > > introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest > > packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. > > Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible." It should be obvious from > > the remainder of the sentence that it is talking about propagation of > > changes *from* Debian *to* Ubuntu. > > syncinc _to_ debian implies that changes are _pushed_ to Debian regularly, > whereas in actuallity they're simply made available for pull by Debian (in > most cases) I am pleased to report to all who were confused or offended by the ambiguities in these quotations that Mark has clarified them both in the wiki already. > Considere the following: > - right now there are no Ubuntu changes to my package > - if Ubuntu suddenly does change my package for whatever reason, there's > absolutely no way I'll suddenly know to go check the patch page. The PTS already contains this information; if you want asynchronous notification, that should be easy to arrange within the PTS. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is > > costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, > > and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. > > I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be > > honest. > > Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. Done. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and > over, is "my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on > otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in > general." > > But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated > tools. I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. > Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number > *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number > alone. I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. > Moreover, what about category (2), packages which are modified? Since you > are making a new source package *anyway*, why is it so expensive? If you re-read your own quote above, you'll see that I was talking about otherwise-unmodified source packages, not source packages which were modified anyway, and if you re-read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html, you'll see that my second question simply asked whether this would be appropriate. > In response to your questions, as if they haven't been answered: So far I've received two clear responses in this thread. I do like jvw's idea of setting up a poll, and that will be a much more effective way to collect opinions on this. I've sent him my proposed options for the poll. I do expect, however, for this decision to be taken with regard to all Debian derivatives, and not to single out Ubuntu with a different set of criteria. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you > > attribute malicious intent. > > Um, I have said nothing about your intent. > > I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs. If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be honest. > You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers regarding Ubuntu practices. Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:32PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Ubuntu is different in that they rebuild all packages, not just the one > they changes. The matter at hand above was source packages, not binary packages. Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices than Ubuntu. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman: > > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Such a change could be implemented in the toolchain. IIRC, you > rebuild everything anyway, so this wouldn't be such a terrible thing > to do. We don't rebuild every source package, which is what the proposal was about (modifying source packages). I outlined the options and their costs as I saw them here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should > be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other > derivative, it's a significant operation on its own. Its commercial > backer is apparently able to pay quite a few Debian developers, several of > them among the core team. There is a significant user base, and so on. > Like it or not, Ubuntu is a bit special. I can't accept this; if there is no principle here which should be applied consistently, then it's entirely unfair to attack Ubuntu. Certainly, there are things about Ubuntu which are unique, but none of them change the issues at hand. Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years* before Ubuntu even existed? This never seemed to bother anyone, and personally, I don't think it's a big deal either. Seriously, it's entirely unreasonable to single out Ubuntu on this issue. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:39:37PM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > Matt Zimmerman writes: > > Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you... > > "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer" implies to me that I > can make uploads to Ubuntu. I can't (not that I'm asking for that > privilege). I don't doubt that it was meant as an expression of gratitude > and camaraderie, but it does not come across that way. Perhaps "Every > Debian developer is, in a sense, also an Ubuntu developer" might get the > point across more clearly. On behalf of those of you who insist on this interpretation, I've already suggested that the wording might be improved, even though I personally think that it's fine as-is. > > Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is > > present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me... > > It doesn't to me. I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me > that they are using my packages. Have you ever received such a notification? There are hundreds of distributions based on Debian, and more appearing all the time. Distributions based on Ubuntu are using your packages as well. How much unsolicited mail is too much? -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:50:09PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when > > > they > > > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright > > > file. > > > > > > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone > > > from > > > their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate > > > place). > > > > I would very much appreciate if folks would review > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the > > points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues > > which came up the last time and presenting them. > > > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Modify the incoming processor, so that the Packages and Sources files get the > correct info. The .dsc and .diff.gz would still have the original values, and the copyright file can't be modified this way. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible > Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly > 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing > the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, > *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. > > You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also > not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to > change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, > it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing > which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. You quite obviously haven't read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I wrote (among other important things), "it would be fairly straightforward for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages". I explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom. If you're going to attack me, please do it on the basis of what I've actually said. Honestly, I expected better from you, give that you've acted like a human being toward me on IRC on several occasions in the past. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an > > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian > > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on > > this subject. > > Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost > everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is > not absolute unanimity on the alternative. That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you attribute malicious intent. What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do. In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and accusatory. There's simply no cause for it. The most productive thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions therein. Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to collect information? Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to piss you off? > Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is > right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too. Nonsense. What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual. Please read the previous threads on this subject. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not > > the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to > > Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* > > for the sake of changing a few lines of text. > > Yes. Being a downstream modifier imposes costs. Debian meets those > costs, how about you? We really don't need a stand-in for Andrew Suffield while he's away. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:01:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > [snip] > > There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, > > there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on > > behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other > > organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be > > reached informally, that's what I think we will need. > > Why would Debian need to take an official position on behalf of its > members? Yes, I can see that it would be in Ubuntu's best interest > for Debian to do so, but since it's obvious from this discussion that > different Debian developers have different opinions on this issue, > it's clearly not in Debian's best interest. In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on this subject. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-16 15:39]: > > Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a > > rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I > > do, I'll attempt to explain. > > Do we call RMS a Debian developer? Do we call Linus a Debian Developer? > Does anyone seriously consider that? Kennedy wasn't a citizen of Berlin, either, not literally. The world understood what he meant, though, when he said (somewhat awkwardly) that he was. > Pardon, but that's ridiculous. I don't have upload permission at all, > can't do anything about my packages, there are changed packages with > still my name as maintainer that I never got any information about -- > and you still have the guts to call me a Ubuntu developer? Sorry for > laughing into your face for that... It isn't productive to take this kind of jeering tone. > > Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents > > should be implicit. > > It's still as cite from Mark on there, and I don't think that the cite > is wrong. Or do you rather consider your fellow developers putting false > statements intenionally there? I'm saying that you should pause and consider that you're looking at a world-writable resource before treating its contents as a position statement on behalf of the project, and that malicious intent is far from the only (or even the most common) reason for errors. It could very well be that Mark or someone else originally wrote "from Debian" and the quote was transcribed incorrectly. In any case, as I said, I think the meaning of the sentence as a whole is sufficiently unambiguous, though for the sake of clarity I will ask Mark to look and correct it if appropriate. > > It was inappropriate for this user to raise this issue with you, > > rather than with Ubuntu, but that's been discussed elsewhere in this > > thread already. > > So? There is the Maintainer field that still has my name and my email > address in it as being responsible for that very package -- where I > can't do anything against it. That's simply wrong. This had been commonplace for Debian derivatives for years before Ubuntu existed, and when the issue was raised regarding Ubuntu, I asked for input from the Debian community as to what to do. The issue is not at all obvious, and in fact it's quite similar to the attribution of upstream authors of packages which are modified in Debian, which is even older. > > What I find interesting about your statement is that you seem to imply > > that the situation would have been better if you had been notified > > that your package was a part of Ubuntu. > [...] > Yes, the situation would had been _immensly_ been better. It would had > shown at least that Ubuntu cares for its upstream. Ubuntu has been in communication with Debian, primarily on this and other Debian mailing lists, about what we are doing since before the project even had a name. We've been very vocal about our development process, which essentially amounts to a branch of the Debian archive. I don't think that a credible claim could be made that Debian was not notified that Ubuntu includes packages from Debian. This is what it means to be a derivative. > > This would be technically simple to implement, but I'm not convinced > > that it's possible to do it in a socially acceptable way. Emailing > > every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present > > in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related > > announcements to Debian mailing lists has been deemed inappropriate by > > many in Debian as well. > > From first I knew only that there is this Ubuntu which goes for one CD > with gnome and xorg on it. I thought fine, I don't have a package in > that range, so why should it bother me too much, so I didn't check. Do > you really think that everyone in Debian is aware that there exist a > thing like multiverse or whatever which seems to include every single > package that is in Debian? I wasn't, for a very long time. Debian, too, distributes software via networked mirrors which is not included on the official CDs. There is nothing surprising or devious in this. > An announce along that lines instead of a press release so you can add > d-d-a to your announce lists would hadn't stirred up so much bad blood I haven't a clue what you're talking about here. What press release, and how does d-d-a enter into it? > > The creation of Ubuntu was *very* widely publicized, as was the fact > > that it was based on Debian, and this fact has b
Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:46:52PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > > > without any luck: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html > > Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they > upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright > file. > > Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone from > their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place). I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:52:10PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to > > 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, > > Obviously; but still, I'd appreciate it if people responsible downstream > for my packages would have a name, rather than being 'some random Ubuntu > person'. > > It'd probably be great if Ubuntu would set up (or, if it already exists, > advertise) some way to have a canonical way (no pun intended) to contact > the Ubuntu maintainer (or, if no such person exists, the responsible > Ubuntu team) for a given package. Something like the > @packages.debian.org alias would be wonderful, but something else would > work, too. Unfortunately, something like @packages.debian.org doesn't map very well to how our development team is organized. Of course, [EMAIL PROTECTED] will reach the right people, but it also has too much traffic to be very reliable for this sort of thing. As I've said before, I'm happy to act as a point of contact personally, and pass on any communications from Debian developers to the appropriate team or individual within Ubuntu, wherever there is a doubt about who to contact. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:58:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice > > for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field > > without any luck: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html > > That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions > on this matter. I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on a Debian mailing list. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. > > Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory. There was a lot of discussion, much of which took place without a clear understanding of the technical issues involved. I attempted to summarize those and present the questions in a clear and unequivocally answerable fashion, and I did not in fact receive a single answer. Now, eight months later, some of the same discussions are being rehashed without considering the issues and questions that I put forth in that summary message. > Personally, I'd suggest: > > * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly >with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the >same Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please individuals with conflicting opinions. > * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the >appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as >to the source you pulled from > > * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the >MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file These two are equivalent, so we don't need to treat main and universe separately. > * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even >when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner I don't see how this would help. If we were to institute a policy (or more likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on the process. What did you have in mind here? > * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit >the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to >bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream. Let's not conflate these entirely separate issues. > > I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time > > frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for > > all. > > It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with "once and for all" > IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago. There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be reached informally, that's what I think we will need. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:31:47PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > You're underestimating the grave consequences of losing 25MB off every > memory stick and virtual machine. python-minimal is about two megabytes installed, with no non-Essential dependencies. (strictly an observation of fact; I'm not expressing an opinion either way about the change) -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:58:47PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices > > > regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably > > > in the introduction of the MOTU group. > > > > The MOTU team was formed about a week after the first release of Ubuntu, in > > October 2004. > > At what point did Ubuntu begin to add lots of people who weren't already > seasoned Debian developers to the MOTU team, and set them loose making > large numbers of changes to packages? Perhaps that's the inflection > point that I'm looking for. The MOTU team has never had a significant number of seasoned Debian developers on it. If such a developer is interested in contributing directly to Ubuntu, they are more likely to join the core development team, and the fact that we're already trusting them implicitly in certain ways is taken into account when considering their application. It has also always been a relatively small group of people tackling maintenance of a large set of packages, especially when considering transitions (e.g., new C++ ABI, Python minor revisions) which involve changing a very large number of packages. I think that you're looking for justification for your position after the fact, rather than making judgements based on observations. I'm not entirely sure where your negativity over Ubuntu originated (though I could hazard a guess or two), but it wasn't because the MOTU team suddenly started behaving differently. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 06:44:42PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > It's amazing how the Debian project manages to communicate fixes to > an even more diverse set of upstream authors, isn't it. I would be interested to know how you've measured this, because it sounds hard. It's only because Ubuntu publishes an archive of its patches that it's possible to estimate how much of it propagates back into Debian, and even so it isn't easy to get an accurate estimate. The ratio of Debian developers to upstream developers is *much* closer to 1:1 than the ratio of Ubuntu developers to Debian developers, but even so, my guess (based on at least some empirical observation of packages I'm familiar with) is that many of the same issues exist. In some cases, there is a healthy and responsive relationship, and in others, there isn't. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > It's not about succeeding. It's about false statements all the time, > like "Every Debian developer is also an Ubuntu developer." If I were I > would know. And they are recompiling all my packages, so you can't even > say that they are using my packages directly. Is the meaning of this statement truly unclear to you, or is this purely a rhetorical point? Under the assumption that you read it differently than I do, I'll attempt to explain. Ubuntu is a Debian derivative. The work that Debian developers do is merged into Ubuntu as well. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are identical to the ones in Debian. The statement that you quoted is an expression of gratitude and camaraderie. I believe it was Mark who originally said it, but I agree with it. I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the same sense, Debian developers. This is part of what makes free software so special, that one's contributions travel far and wide to benefit others, even if one has no direct involvement with them. > It's also about false statements like "We sync our packages to Debian > regularly," because that simply doesn't happen for quite a lot of us, > otherwise all these heated discussions wouldn't happen. Given that you saw this on a wiki page, a disclaimer about wiki contents should be implicit. However, regardless of whether it's an accurate quote, it's quite clear to me from context that your interpretation doesn't match the text. The full quote is "We sync our packages to Debian regularly, because that introduces the latest work, the latest upstream code, and the newest packaging efforts from a huge and competent open source community. Without Debian, Ubuntu would not be possible." It should be obvious from the remainder of the sentence that it is talking about propagation of changes *from* Debian *to* Ubuntu. > I can only speak for myself (like everyone anyway, but it seems to be > mentioned), I haven't noticed anyone reaching me, so I hadn't had any > chance to burn anyone. The only contact with respect to Ubuntu was a > user disappointed that one of my packages in Debian had a fix that the > one in Ubuntu hadn't... for several weeks. All I could do is thank him > for appreciating my work but that it's out of my hands to fix it for > Ubuntu because I never was notified about that it's included there, and > wouldn't know at all who to contact therefore. It was inappropriate for this user to raise this issue with you, rather than with Ubuntu, but that's been discussed elsewhere in this thread already. What I find interesting about your statement is that you seem to imply that the situation would have been better if you had been notified that your package was a part of Ubuntu. This would be technically simple to implement, but I'm not convinced that it's possible to do it in a socially acceptable way. Emailing every Debian maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related announcements to Debian mailing lists has been deemed inappropriate by many in Debian as well. The creation of Ubuntu was *very* widely publicized, as was the fact that it was based on Debian, and this fact has been mentioned countless times since, both in the press and on Debian mailing lists. Clearly you were informed, one way or another. What was problematic about the way it happened, and how could it have been improved? > > They are really investing time on the co-operation, > If they were, why would there be so much fuss about it? Well, yes, I think so. It's a complicated issue, and the fact that there are discussions about it doesn't imply that either party isn't making an effort. > Again, speaking for myself, I haven't noticed such a thing for myself I find this type of disclaimer very frustrating. I see a number of opinions expressed about the Ubuntu community by persons with no first-hand experience with it. Most Debian maintainers have probably never interacted with Ubuntu, and there's no reason that most of them should expect to. Setting aside the debate about patch submission for a moment, in the case of most packages, there are no patches in Ubuntu relative to Debian. In fact, I just looked, and I found only one package with maintainer [EMAIL PROTECTED] which has a delta in Ubuntu: libmetakit2.4.9.3. I read the patch just now; here's what's in it: - Transition to python2.4 as the default Python version in Ubuntu. You don't want this patch for Debian yet. - Packaging transition for the gcc4 C++ ABI. Debian developers were notified about the availability of these patches in Ubuntu when the transition began in Debian, though it looks like you chose not to use it, and rebuilt the package instead. - autoconf has been re-run. In other words, I don't see what it is that you're dissatisfied about, in your role as maintainer of these packages. Are you speaking for yo
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 01:08:41AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:34:51PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > can easily spot the holes in it. Likewise, a proposal that Ubuntu > > developers should put their changes into Debian instead sounds simple, but > > to an Ubuntu developer is obviously impractical. > > Could you elaborate on this? It's not obvious to me at all why more > changes couldn't be pushed through Debian and automatically into Ubuntu. Only Debian developers can push changes into Debian, and indeed only particular Debian developers can push particular changes into Debian. Routing patches through this mesh involves a lot of overhead, especially in the form of latency. It's commonplace in Debian to wait weeks for a response from a maintainer, for example, and there's no one covering for them during that time. Just as some aspects of Ubuntu's operation are not visible to the Debian community, Ubuntu MOTUs for example cannot be reasonably expected to know who is responsive, who is MIA, whether a particular maintainer doesn't want to receive email with the word "Ubuntu" in it, etc. This is another instance of the long-standing "Debian has no face" issue. Organizations external to Debian need genuine, responsive, personal, persistent contacts to interface with. I think that a more practical approach is to have someone (or a team) working within Debian as a liaison, who will manage the queue and ensure that the right people are contacted and that the changes eventually get uploaded to Debian. This is more or less what I hope the "utnubu" project will do. > On a related note, it seems to me that the existence of the "MOTU" team, > as non-core Ubuntu developers who are also not Debian developers, > encourages more packages to be forked. Those developers can't make > direct Debian uploads even if they want to; at worst they have no interest > in contributing to Debian at all. There are also Ubuntu core developers who are not also Debian developers, and their number will continue to grow. Joining Debian cannot be a prerequisite for working on Ubuntu; that would be entirely impractical. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 05:09:44PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Hmm, it seems to me that Ubuntu has recently changed its practices > regarding what degree of divergence from Debian is appropriate, notably > in the introduction of the MOTU group. The MOTU team was formed about a week after the first release of Ubuntu, in October 2004. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dissection of an Ubuntu PR message
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 12:23:51PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 1/14/06, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:03:14PM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > (...) > > > Exactly my point Matthew, and calm down David, i wrote: "e.g.: David > > > said that Daniel helped him, but if he did that in his workhours it's > > > under Canonical bless.". Do you see ? I just pointed out that there's > > > a possibility that he was helping you in his workhours, but i won't > > > cite you as a reference anymore. > > > > > > -- > > > Gustavo Franco > > Hi Gustavo, > > Is it within the scope of Canonical employees to contribute code to > > Debian that is under the his copyright and not Canonical's? And > > especially since it is in the exact same area that he was employed by > > Canonical to do? Would this apply to Progeny and Debian, Progeny and > > Canonical, Linspire and ... > > Hi Kevin, > > I think that Matt Zimmerman (mdz) knows the answer. I'm not sure I understand the question, but if Kevin is asking whether code contributions to Debian by Canonical employees are copyrighted by Canonical? If so, the answer is "sometimes". -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:54:30AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog:
>
> > I believe Ubuntu fills an important gap in the Debian world and as such
> > I'm not satisfied when Ubuntu is diverging too much from Debian, and the
> > only way to avoid divergence is to merge back what's useful and to provide
> > better solution for derivatives when there's a need for a divergence.
>
> How can I request removal of a package which has been added to Ubuntu
> ("universe", whatever that is), despite not being useful on Ubuntu?
The maintainers for the Ubuntu "universe" component can be reached at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 07:19:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Which group, pray, do you categorize me into? You, Manoj, are in a category all your own. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: French cheese
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 06:15:16PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Unfortunately, this conflicts with a development sprint we're having in > > London, so that won't be possible at that time. > > > > My heart breaks at the prospect of a missed opportunity to gorge myself on > > cheese... > > > Well, it's just a matter of jumping in the first Eurostar in the > morning, be at Gare du Nord around 8 or 9, go to Solutions Linux, > drink, talk and eat cheese all day long with fellow Debian and Ubuntu > people, then jump in another Eurostar back to London (with some cheese > in your luggage) and be back for hacking with your fellow Ubuntu > people late in the night. I'm afraid I really can't leave in the middle of things, though I'll be in a convenient time zone and available by voice or IRC much of the time. I will simply have to be content with imported cheese until DebConf. > And, for next year, just plan your development sprint in Paris..:-) > (I'm half-serious and even really serious here) Could happen... -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:49:40PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > I don't buy this. The impression that just about everyone has of this > didn't come from nowhere. Not from nowhere, no. The statements that Ubuntu "steals users from Debian", "wants to kill Debian", etc. came from somewhere, too, but that somewhere wasn't Ubuntu. > http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship > > "Sponsored by Canonical, the Ubuntu project attempts to work with > Debian to address the issues that keep many users from using Debian." Ubuntu does attempt to work with Debian. > "When Ubuntu developers fix bugs that are also present in debian packages > -- and since the projects are linked, this happens often -- they send > their bugfixes to the Debian developers responsible for that package in > debian and record the patch URL in the debian bug system." Ubuntu does submit such patches, though "bugs which were reported to Debian and consequently fixed by Ubuntu developers" would be more accurate. I'll suggest that change. > "First, Ubuntu contributes patches directly to Debian" The word "directly" is somewhat misleading here; in general, Ubuntu developers are not allowed (by Debian) to make any change "directly" to Debian. I will suggest that it be removed. > I think that's what serves to create a pretty strong impression that Ubuntu > is actually working very closely with Debian to do things like "address the > issues that keep many users from using Debian." From the sound of this > thread everyone would welcome what's on that page with open arms. I can't agree. From the sound of this and other threads, there are a number of folks who are unlikely to be satisfied with any behavior on the part of the Ubuntu project or its members. Fortunately, there are others who are actively cooperating to the mutual benefit of the two projects. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 10:19:50AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 01:14:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Some things that it does say: > > [...] > > > - Ubuntu submits fixes for Debian bugs to the Debian BTS including a patch > > URL > > If that said "sometimes" or "some people within Ubuntu", it would be > correct. Not every relevant patch ends up in the BTS. I was afraid that this would start this kind of trivial semantic discussion. It doesn't say that Ubuntu fixes ALL Debian bugs, or any other absolute. It does say that Ubuntu submits bug fixes to Debian through the BTS, and there are in fact hundreds of such fixes in debbugs today. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:41:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I'm not at all surprised that Ubuntu is drifting into closed-source > software, as this is a standard development path for a company based > around free software. I'm not upset. I'm simply not interested, and > consider that path to be entirely predictable. Ubuntu, while its license policy is somewhat less strict than the DFSG, is not drifting into closed-source software. It's virtually unchanged since the project's inception. http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/licensing > And certainly, I would oppose blessing any closed-source toolset as part > of Debian's infrastructure, regardless of its origins. So would I. I mean this in the same sense that I assume that you do, meaning the sort of software which we see and work with directly. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:19:09PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > But at the moment I've seen lots of comments by maintainers saying that in > most cases it's currently more work to find out if there's any usefull > bits in the diffs between debian-ubuntu packages, then to do the work > themselves (for various reasons, which have been mentioned before) One generally only hears about the problems in these situations. Someone who quietly pulls a patch from Ubuntu and goes on with their life doesn't complain loudly in threads like these, but I see it all the time on debian-devel-changes. There are rather few cases where the diffs are truly hairy, as I've pointed out in previous threads with examples. > In the mean while Ubuntu proudly calls "ubuntu gives things back", whereas > in reality we mostly have a situation of "ubuntu will help debian > maintainers that want to take things back" > > -> It's this misrepresentation of where (most of) the initiative lies which >pisses people off. This is only the latest expression of the same general discontent which has been rehashed again and again on this list. A year ago it was "Ubuntu aren't contributing", then "Ubuntu aren't contributing in the right way", and now "Ubuntu aren't contributing in the way that they say that they are". Ubuntu hasn't significantly changed its practices; it is only the accusation which has changed over time. The trouble is that those expressing this opinion seem to have misunderstandings about what has actually been said. They talk about what is said "proudly", that Ubuntu is "crowing" or "bragging" about "giving back", that it conceals its Debian roots, etc. If you read what is written on the Ubuntu website about the relationship between Ubuntu and Debian, it doesn't have this kind of tone at all, and certainly doesn't use the kind of language that many have attributed to Ubuntu in this thread. Some things that it does say: - Ubuntu is based on Debian, and what this means in terms of the movement of packages - Ubuntu differs from Debian in its philosophy, and how - The Ubuntu development methodology is different from Debian's, and how - Ubuntu classifies packages from Debian into different categories, how, and why - Ubuntu's release cycle differs from Debian's, and how - Ubuntu, unlike many other Debian derivatives, publishes all of its patches for Debian's benefit, and on a continuous basis, not only when a release is made - Ubuntu submits fixes for Debian bugs to the Debian BTS including a patch URL The information on the page is accurate (or was at the time of its writing; there seem to be some outdated bits) and much of it has been validated as such by virtue of being argued about on this very mailing list. It does not discuss the direct collaboration which takes place between certain Ubuntu developers and Debian developers who communicate regularly, though this practice is not uncommon either. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Need for launchpad
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:08:33PM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > as documented experience by maintainers who've tried that shows, this is > inefficient enough that reimplementing is mostly faster (and definately > more attractive, as it involves less drudgework) This is at best an exaggeration, and clearly and demonstrably *not* the rule. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
