Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matt Zimmerman]

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: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Wednesday 18 January 2006 21:51, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:41:58AM +0100, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 
wrote:
> > 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.

right, that solves part of it.

BUT this still doesn't help with the having multiple logical changes (most 
of which might not apply) in a single patch (an example of which was 
detailed earlier in this subthread) Problems I have with this:
- I don't know of any upstream that accepts patches like the one discussed.
  Let along does so routinely. So why is Debian expected to be different in
  this regard?
- After having looked over a new patch with the same/similar non-applicable
  changes a couple of times, and no (new) applicable changes people will,
  quite rightly IMHO, stop looking at the linked ubuntu patches, which is
  surely not what Ubuntu wants? (from comments I've seen in blogs and other 
  places, this is definately a major source of frustration on the side of
  DD's).

Providing 1 patch per logical change should be possible, assuming each 
logical change is made seperately. (Which should be the case most of the 
time I expect?) 
Has Ubuntu looked into this? If so what were the problems keeping this from 
happening? Is it completely impractical, is it being worked on, or ... ?
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)


pgpk5tGMUro5T.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Kevin Mark]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 10:26:05AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> > > 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.
> > 
> >  Again my question: Do you seriously consider calling Linus and RMS
> > Debian Developers?
> 
> Shuttleworth is using a *figure of speech*. A figure of speech is
> something not to be taken literally. Figures of speech are used all the
> time and they make language more interesting.
> 
> Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a
> metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly
> have been people who uttered "Hey, he's not German! He's lying!". But
> luckily most people will have understood what he meant.
Hi Thijs,
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'
Cheers,
Kev
- -- 
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
  `$' $' 
   $  $  _
 ,d$$$g$  ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b
,$P'  `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$'  `$ $  "'   `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P""  $ $$
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$
 `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $.  ,$.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDz00Iv8UcC1qRZVMRAjpGAJoCJkC2PoCIpXW8/7JiN0XDPy8lLgCfb6UR
wb5Y/dqdkkqDZUUbujEZb/A=
=mIW+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:36:12PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-18 10:26]:
> > Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a
> > metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly
> > have been people who uttered "Hey, he's not German! He's lying!". But
> > luckily most people will have understood what he meant.
>  Then it's still Kennedy's problem, because he didn't claim something
> for others.

Perhaps you'd find the "We are all Americans" saying more on
point. (http://www.worldpress.org/1101we_are_all_americans.htm) Can you
take it to alt.usage.english or something instead though?

FWIW, while I don't call myself an Ubuntu developer, I don't really have
any problem with what Mark and others are saying -- they're trying to
give appropriate acknowledgement that their work's built on ours, which,
frankly I appreciate, and I think benefits Debian immensely. I wouldn't
have any problem with saying Linus or Dave Miller are Debian developers
in the sense meant by Mark and others, and I think it's a pretty cool
property of free software development that they can and do contribute to
Debian without having to actually use it themselves or even particularly
care about it.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matthew Palmer]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:30:22PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >  So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from
> > ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful
> > for a d-d-a mail so we are aware of it.
> 
> This is what also wonder about ubuntu-haters. Somehow it is OK for 
> Debian to have different opinions and preferences ("Tell me about changes" 
> vs "don't spam me" or "You don't Attribute my work" vs "Don't put my 
> name there").
> 
> But at the same time you require a explict policy from ubuntu and anytime
> a ubuntu developer says something about it is considered a official position 
> statetement.. Until we can do a official statement of debian derivate 
> policy ourselfs, we can hardly require it from them..

We don't have to require an official position statement from Ubuntu -- it's
already been published.  The other difference is that Ubuntu has a Dictator
For Life, who runs the show, while Debian is just a loose collection of
people who elect someone annually to keep them out of mischief.  

Also, other Debian derivatives and Gentoo/Fedora/OpenSUSE don't make a habit
of touting their contributions to Debian, and that's been the main complaint
that I've seen in this thread -- that Ubuntu *talks* about contributing back
to Debian, but isn't *seen* to be doing so, on a systematic basis.

> >  Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality
> > in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes?
> 
> The same can be claimed about about Debian and our upstreams. Not all
> maintainers submit their patches upstream, and sometimes our lack 
> of co-operation have made our upstreams really unhappy (Remember micq?).

The micq debacle wasn't about Debian not sending patches upstream, it was
about Debian not being able to keep up-to-date with the intentional
breakages of the ICQ protocol by Miribilis, and consequently making micq
(and hence, it's author) look bad.

> >  And I like to point out that there isn't any correspondence between the
> > ubuntu developers and the debian developers in respect to getting
> > sensible patches they do back into debian, which very much disappoints
> > me, if not does get me a bad opinion on the intentions of ubuntu.
> 
> Ubuntu (and other derivates) are using the same freedoms Debian 
> is built upon. We would not accept a licence that required us to submit
> our patches upstream (dissident and desert island tests), so howcome it
> is OK to require such behaviour from our downstreams?

We're not requiring any particular behaviour from our downstreams beyond
licence compliance and "keeping their promises".

- Matt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matt Zimmerman]

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: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matt Zimmerman]

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: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Isaac Clerencia]

On Wednesday, 18 January 2006 11:30, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> >  So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around
>
> Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to ubuntu, checking what
> other Debian derivates, Fedora, OpenSuSe or even Gentoo etc have done for
> the same software you are packaging might reveal patches and changes.
So we agree that Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSuSE give back something similar to 
Debian, but only Ubuntu uses Debian in its PR.

Best regards
-- 
Isaac Clerencia at Warp Networks, http://www.warp.es
Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   | Debian: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


pgpPFkzASGL9z.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Colin Watson]

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:
> > 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.
> 
> 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)

It's meant to be shorthand for "syncing [the package in Ubuntu] to
[match the version in] Debian", or similar; I've certainly used the same
colloquial shorthand in bug reports and such without realising that it
could be confusing if stripped of all its context. Although, like Matt,
I do think that the context (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth,
near the bottom) clarifies the meaning, I agree it's not the best
phrasing and for grammatical reasons should be changed to "synced from
Debian".

Matt has already said he'll ask for this to be changed (it's on Mark's
personal wiki page, so changing it directly would be a bit rude), so
hopefully we can stop going round in circles on this one.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Gerfried Fuchs]

[don't be confused about the To header, this is merly just for testing a
 propable b0rked setup]

* Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-18 10:26]:
> Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a
> metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly
> have been people who uttered "Hey, he's not German! He's lying!". But
> luckily most people will have understood what he meant.

 Then it's still Kennedy's problem, because he didn't claim something
for others.

 I know what you mean, though Mark is forcing a claim onto us, where the
term Debian Developer is quite strictly defined within our roles, people
in the NM queue aren't called Debian Developers.

 For me and quite some others, if you read the thread, the term $foo
Developer implies that the person is able to incorporate changes into
$foo directly. I understand what Mark meant, but on the wiki page where
the cite is there isn't any context at all, and no explenation on how
it's meant. It's vastly misunderstandable.

> Same goes for Shuttleworth here, if it wasn't obvious from the context
> already (which IMO it was)

 The thing is, there isn't any context in that wiki page. I'm pleased
that he sees us as (in)valueable, but given that still every now and
then misguided reports appear doesn't really help, especially when it's
about ubuntu changed packages which we can't do anything about.

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
use Mail::Signature;
$sig = Mail::Signature->new;
print $sig->random;


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Riku Voipio]

On Wednesday 18 January 2006 11:01, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
>  So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around

Yes it is. and you shouldn't restrict yourself to ubuntu, checking what other
Debian derivates, Fedora, OpenSuSe or even Gentoo etc have done for the 
same software you are packaging might reveal patches and changes.

It is true that all that information is not available at one central place, 
which 
makes this job a bit troublesome. Setting such setup should not be that 
hard, it just requires LOTS of diskspace and bandwidth.. 

>  So you are saying it's the Debian Developer's job to pull changes from
> ubuntu back? If that is an official statement, then that would be useful
> for a d-d-a mail so we are aware of it.

This is what also wonder about ubuntu-haters. Somehow it is OK for 
Debian to have different opinions and preferences ("Tell me about changes" 
vs "don't spam me" or "You don't Attribute my work" vs "Don't put my 
name there").

But at the same time you require a explict policy from ubuntu and anytime
a ubuntu developer says something about it is considered a official position 
statetement.. Until we can do a official statement of debian derivate 
policy ourselfs, we can hardly require it from them..

>  Do you imply with this message that Ubuntu doesn't care about quality
> in their upstreams but rather keep their stuff to themselfes?

The same can be claimed about about Debian and our upstreams. Not all
maintainers submit their patches upstream, and sometimes our lack 
of co-operation have made our upstreams really unhappy (Remember micq?).

However, that is not an excuse for Debian Derivate Developers not to 
co-operate with Debian Maintainers, or for us with our upstreams.

>  And I like to point out that there isn't any correspondence between the
> ubuntu developers and the debian developers in respect to getting
> sensible patches they do back into debian, which very much disappoints
> me, if not does get me a bad opinion on the intentions of ubuntu.

Ubuntu (and other derivates) are using the same freedoms Debian 
is built upon. We would not accept a licence that required us to submit
our patches upstream (dissident and desert island tests), so howcome it
is OK to require such behaviour from our downstreams?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Tuesday 17 January 2006 00:39, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:59:58AM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >  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.

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)

what you're describing above is reforking from the latest upstream 
regularly, while that will indeed minimize divergence, it's not even close 
to being the same thing as "syncing the package with Debian"

there's notting inherently wrong with the ubuntu approach you just 
described, but it is not wat is listed as ubuntu behavior.

> >  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.

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 above problem becomes worse when 
- 1 DD needs to do this for lots of packages
- a package has lots of changes, some/most of which are not applicable to
  Debian (mentioned earlier were whitespace changes, grateous
  autotool-changes, changes to dpatch...), all which have to be sepperated
  from the applicable changes each time one checks for new differences

That's a clear problem that becomes nightmarish for large amounts of 
packages and/or non-applicable changes, it's also the problem pointed at in 
the above IMHO
 
> 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.

Not what's being asked: the question was to notify every Debian maintainer 
every time a new change is being made to the ubuntu version that they 
should look at merging back (dare I suggest by using Debian BTS?)

> 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.

right, so please notify the maintainer when there is indeed a (new) patch so 
they know to go look for it? As you've just pointed out presence of patches 
is not the default state.

> 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

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Gerfried Fuchs]

[EMAIL PROTECTED], if you read that: Fix your mail setup, I'm not
 interested in getting double mails from whatever setup you have there.
 Thanks]

* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:26PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>>  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.

 Again my question: Do you seriously consider calling Linus and RMS
Debian Developers? Even when you know exactly what this term refers so?
Tell me why I should think that a derivated Debian distribution doesn't
seem to be aware of the definition of this term within Debian.

 Sorry, Matt, but that does show to me that you aren't aware of the
difference of these statements, which very much they are.

>>  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.

 So you want to turn down this honest (and yes, I admit emotional
driven, though still honest) question with such a statement? Do you
really call people Ubuntu developers who don't have a real chance to do
anything about what it is done to their packages and aren't informed
about such actions? Please don't avoid this question again, because it
is 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.

 Then pretty please fix it.

> 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 isn't. The difference between to and from is a thing that is very
much a difference. Because the to is the thing that isn't really
working, or do you really think there would be so much fuss if the sync
from Ubuntu back to Debian would really work?

> 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.

 I don't know what was done for years, but I know for one thing that I
was never contacted about changes to packages and if I'd approve them.
Leaving my name in their as maintainer for a _changed_ package implies
to some degree that I'm sort-of approving it. Either by being MIA
through an NMU, through some team maintenance or similar. I can't do
anything to revert such changes (no matter how good or bad I consider
them) in packages in Ubuntu. I'm not responsible for the package in
Ubuntu, so why should my name be in there?

 About the reasoning "others have done that, too", that is mainly used
in kindergardens, I don't buy it. It sounds like a very cheap excuse. We
aren't discussing others (and yes, I would have raised the same concerns
there too, if I would have been made aware of it), we are discussing
Ubuntu.

> 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.

> If you had doubts about which packages were included, it wouldn't have
> taken much effort on your part to find out.

 So again you are saing it's the Debian Developer's job to look around
and do what would had been so easy for Ubuntu, to inform the maintainers
of packages, maybe only those that were changed upon?

> Do you truly see this as such a radical departure from how Debian and other
> distributions already work?

 Yes, I do.

> Free software is rarely so clear-cut.  By the time a piece of free
> software arrives in the hands of a user, it has passed through more
> than one set of hands and more often than not, modified from its
> original version.

 But then the people who change it don't publish it under the name of
others.  And it is more common than uncommon that the people who change
something send the changes back, instead of waiting for their upstream
to stumble upon it and notice that there were changes in there.

> As soon as the issue was raised (and although it was raised in a Debian
> forum, 

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 10:01 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-17 11:36]:
> > 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.
> 
>  Again my question: Do you seriously consider calling Linus and RMS
> Debian Developers?

Shuttleworth is using a *figure of speech*. A figure of speech is
something not to be taken literally. Figures of speech are used all the
time and they make language more interesting.

Mr Zimmerman's reference to Kennedy is an excellent example of such a
metaphorical construct. When Kennedy said that, there will undoubtedly
have been people who uttered "Hey, he's not German! He's lying!". But
luckily most people will have understood what he meant.

Same goes for Shuttleworth here, if it wasn't obvious from the context
already (which IMO it was), it's certainly clear now that this a way to
express how important Debian developers are to the state of Ubuntu. And
yes indeed, in the same sense could he have said that Stallman or
Torvalds are Ubuntu or Debian developers. As an indication of how
important these two people are for the foundations of our OS. Not
literally.

I hope this confusion is cleared up a bit now.


Thijs


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matthew Garrett]

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mdz writes:
>> Have you ever received such a notification? 
> 
> Yes.

I haven't. I'm going to cry now :-(((

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[John Hasler]

I wrote:
> I am pleased when downstream distributions notify me that they are using
> my packages.

mdz writes:
> Have you ever received such a notification? 

Yes.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matt Zimmerman]

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: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matt Zimmerman]

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 been mentioned
> > countless times since, both in the press and on Debian mailing lists.
> 
>  But it wasn't really mentioned that it includes every single package
> that is out there

Ubuntu is, and always has been, a branch of sid.  This has been pointed out,
among other places, on debian-devel and on the front page of LWN.  Not a

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-16 15:39]:
> 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.

 Do we call RMS a Debian developer? Do we call Linus a Debian Developer?
Does anyone seriously consider that?

 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'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.

 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?

> 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.

 My interpretation of "regularly" and "sync" and _especially_ the "We"
most hopefully doesn't vary very much with that of most people.

> 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.

 Then I guess the to should be changed into a from, just to get the
direction where the sync really happens and what you are willing to
really do straight with the reality.

> 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.

> 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.

 Then I would had been able to a.) check if someone might add changes,
b.) to check if my address and name is in the changed package, and c.)
inform the person at hand that I don't think that the changes make much
sense and if there are changes needed for ubuntu that they should at
least have the courtsey to leave me out of the Mainainer field, becasue
again: _I_ can't do anything for the package in ubuntu. I have no upload
rights there.

 Yes, the situation would had been _immensly_ been better. It would had
shown at least that Ubuntu cares for its upstream.

> 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. 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, don't you
think so?

> 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.

 But it wasn't really mentioned that it includes every single package
that is out there

 Again, beside that, it would had been a courtsey to change the
Maintainer field, or send patches back. Applying patches and leaving the
Maintainer field to a DD is just terribly impolite, because the
"Maintainer" isn't the maintainer anymore and can't do anything about
it, and additionally do

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Robert Collins wrote:
> And yet most upstreams can get pretty much arbitrary code into Debian,
> just by committing it?. How many DD's read the -entire- diff on major
> version upgrades from upstream. And not just read, audit.

Not all, but it might be quite a few more than what you seem to expect given
the ammount of stressing you place on "-entire- diff".

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.17.0039 +0100]:
> 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

s/Debian/Ubuntu

> same sense, Debian developers.  This is part of what makes free software so

And yes, all of this makes sense. I guess the issue some DDs have
with this model is that they aren't treated as Upstream because
there's a lack of information exchange. Moreover, Ubuntu has moved
ahead in a few areas, and Debian followed, which makes it difficult
to think in simple upstream-downstream terms.

Note that I don't hold the opinion, and I appreciate what Ubuntu is
doing -- I am just trying to echo the picture as I see it.

I concur that Scott's patches are not very useful since they
have been clearly automatically generated and often include
autogenerated files (see libhid for instance), but all in all,
Ubuntu is a worthy addition to the distro field, and Debian has
profitted *a lot* already: gcc4, python2.4, zope, xorg, you name it.

> maintainer to notify them that their package is present in Ubuntu sounds
> like spam to me, and posting Ubuntu-related announcements to Debian mailing

... not anymore than the migrated-to-testing-mails we get all the
time.

But anyway, we are not in need for more automated solutions. What
should happen is that DDs should be able to find out who's
responsible for their packages in Ubuntu, and the UD should treat
the DD as upstream, discussing with her/him and planning out
a strategy for changes. If a change is Ubuntu-specific, so be it. If
it isn't, work with the DD to have it integrated into Debian.

> The creation of Ubuntu was *very* widely publicized, as was the fact that it

... it's still not called "Debian for Humans" :)

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
 
Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
 
"education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time
 to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught."
-- oscar wilde


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[John Hasler]

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.

> 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.

-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 19:21 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > but I agree with it.  I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the
> > same sense, Debian developers. 
> 
> I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with
> everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed that as a blanket
> statement.

And yet most upstreams can get pretty much arbitrary code into Debian,
just by committing it?. How many DD's read the -entire- diff on major
version upgrades from upstream. And not just read, audit.

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: .


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Joey Hess]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> 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.

FWIW, Mark's statement is one that I flat out disagree with. I have no
obligation or committment to Ubuntu, therefore I am not an Ubuntu
developer. 

I appreciate his statement in the spirit I think he made it, but I don't
appreciate people who take it and shove it down my throat to try to
pretend that I have some committment to Ubuntu.

> but I agree with it.  I would also say that Debian's upstreams are, in the
> same sense, Debian developers. 

I think that we probably have hundreds of upstreams who would react with
everything from disbelief to anger if Debian claimed that as a blanket
statement.

Now, analog and procmeter's upstreams have on occasion read/subscribed
to the Debian BTS, sent patches to it, etc, and I certianly would be
happy to tell them I consider them to be in a sense Debian developers
because of that. But as a blanket statement it just makes the term
"Ubuntu|Debian developer" a no-op.

> Most Debian maintainers have probably never interacted with Ubuntu,
> and there's no reason that most of them should expect to.

And yet we're all "Ubuntu developers", hmm?

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Matt Zimmerman]

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: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Martin Langhoff]

On 1/15/06, Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
> people who can't understand sarcasm?

debian-announce is not meant to play games. Someone made a (perhaps
honest) mistake, and were duly criticised. But you know the rules.

regards,


martin

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Sami Haahtinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-15 11:27]:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>>  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.
> 
> They have their own timetable. They do their stabilization differently
> than debian does. Ubuntu freezes the packages at a certain point in time
> and only does manual syncs after that. "Regularly" could be once a year
> and still be regular.
> 
> What do you want? decide which packages get to certain ubuntu release?
> Didn't they just offer you that chance?

 I want that they inform their upstream about changes they do to their
releases. This is what this whole fuzz is about. And I'm not the only
one. Why should some upstream developers who don't even know that they
are forked look around the net to find things that might be useful to
them? Shouldn't rather the people that fork try to get the changes back
into their upstream, to _ease their own work_? I mean... if they want to
keep their patches forever and want to stumble into problems every now
and then for taking a look why the patch doesn't apply anymore it's fine
with me. But, they are saying that "they" sync it back, not that I would
have to run around to most of the time find nothing That's not the
way it's supposed to work.

 What I want: If someone changes something, they are on the call anyway.
They know already that they changed something, what's so difficult to
inform the involved parties? Especially as long as they keep the
Maintainer field intact and let it look like the changes were done by
me? Yes, it's in the changelog, but keeping the Maintainer means that I
am still maintaining their fork, which I simply don't do since I have no
access to upload there.

> As i see it utnubu is the middle ground for debian and ubuntu people.
> It's something that debian people want to do to keep up with Ubuntu.

 Yes, because Ubuntu isn't able or willing or whatever to keep up with
Debian. It's still working the wrong way round, it's sort of
reverse-engineering for hardware, because they know what they changed
already, we have to work it out at first, just to find most of the
time... nothing.

> I see utnubu as a good thing, it solves problems that the people behind
> utnubu want to get solved. They decided to do the work instead of
> throwing it back to Ubuntu and saying "It's your problem to make me
> agree with you". As utnubu page says:
> "We are about cooperation, not confrontation, with Ubuntu."

 It's not about agreeing. It's about working on stuff that is unique in
the Free Software community: The people who are confronted with changed
things have to actively pull the changes back, not the way around it
works like everywhere else: That people who change something push it
back.

> co-operation needs co-operation from both parties!

 Again, like I mentioned, I never was addressed about cooperation, so I
never had the chance to turn it down. And I am very sure I'm not the
only one in that state.

> You are not forced to pull anything from Ubuntu.

 Uh? But this is what it is all about. I _am_ sort of forced because
they don't push their changes, like it would rather be expected.

> But you should remember that the packages that are being worked on
> outside of the ubuntu main are maintained by a small group (when
> compared to the people in debian) of people. They have limited time to
> push all changes to upstream and usually the changes are just for the
> packaging anyway.

 If they have limited time it should be in _their own_ interest to push
the changes back. Hell, have you never stumbled upon a patch that simply
doesn't apply anymore? It's a lot of work to take a look what's going
wrong now again, whereas it is next to no work sending a small mail with
"I changed this or that, maybe you'd like to take a look at it." It's
about investing into the future, but some people only seem to work only
for today. That's also the reason why we have so many duplicated
security advisories because people don't think about the future but only
copy stuff because it's the easier approach for now

> Also, you should remember that there are people that have said that they
> don't want to be in contact with ubuntu.

 So this counts for everyone now? I don't think that the people that
have said that they don't want to be in contact with ubuntu are the ones
complaining about not hearing from them. This would be very strange,
don't you think so?

> So it's not an easy thing to notify debian people about the changes in
> their packages when some people get offended by the notification
> itself.

 Why not? Either maintainer a list of bad-DDs or don't take it personal.
I also don't take it personal if my upstreams sort-of ignore me most of
the time. That doesn't mean that I don't contact them from time to time,
because I care about the users of those packages. If ubuntu rath

Re: Better communication between projects [Was: ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Peter Samuelson]

[Sami Haahtinen]
> like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact ' That way we could even
> add a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that
> could override the maintainer and modifier.

"Preferred contact" is *exactly* what the Maintainer field means.
[Well, and the co-maintainers ("Uploaders") field, as a supplement.]

Debian people who have a problem with downstream changing the
Maintainer field need to get over themselves and think about whether
debian/changelog gives them all the credit they are owed.  (It
certainly does, unless it's been abridged.)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Willi Mann]

But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu 
does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an 
interest to include improvements of other distributions in their 
packages (at least I do).



Maemo (from the Nokia 770 fame) contains Debian packages. But d-d-a is no
place to talk about it.


I don't think many packages can profit from Maemo. But I do think that 
many packages can profit from Ubuntu improvements.



d-d-a is the list where information that concers to and MUST be known by all
DDs is sent. It might be of more or less relevance for some of us, but is
definitely not a place for "if you are interested" stuff.


True, but Andrew Suffield's approach is destructive and his "Windows 
security advisories .." argument is not appropriate. The constructive 
approach is to point out on d-d, not d-d-a that the message does not 
really fit in the description of d-d-a, and to propose an alternative 
way to publish that kind information.



The change of experimental, the h0x3r that we got in out machines, changes on
infrastructure... those are the things. Ah! and of course, the release of
etch.


I just wanted to point out that the "completly irrelevant" argument is 
not really true. And if you try it the way round, by finding an 
appropriate mailing-list to post such information, you will probably end 
up @lists.debian.org anyway. AFAIK there's nothing like a 
debian-ubuntu-collaboration-announce list.


Willi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Better communication between projects [Was: ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Sami Haahtinen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Michael Meskes wrote:
>>other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
>>the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
>>modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
>>go either way.
> 
> Wait a moment, just to clarify this, you mean if you take a Debian package 
> change it for Ubuntu and let's say add your name to the maintainer field but 
> also add an additional X-Debian-Mantainer field (for example) that lists the 
> original maintainer, this will offend some fellow Debian maintainers? Anyone 
> care to tell me why?

As far i understand, some people get offended by this too. Someone
suggested this in some earlier thread and AFAIR it got shot down too. I
agree that this would be the way to go. Or better yet, add a
Modified-By: field that tells us who modified the package.. No wait.. we
already have that! Is this a problem with the tools after all. Maybe we
should modify the tools to contact the person who last modified the package.

This doesn't fix the problem that the user might not know about this and
while looking at the description gets misguided. Maybe we need something
like 'dpkg --show-primary-contact ' That way we could even add
a separate field Preferred-Contact: (or something alike) that could
override the maintainer and modifier.

What do you think?

> But still, I have no problem with my name in the Ubuntu packages, but I'd 
> expect to know about this BEFORE it gets published. 

Yeah well, the damage has been done. Now it's time for damage control
and rebuilding.

Hopefully we and the next people who do this know better.

>>And about pulling the changes, did you notice these:
>>...
>>Ubuntu side:
>>https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages
> 
> Whow! No, noone ever told me that I have an entry there that looks like it is 
> my entry but instead is created and kept up-to-date by someone else without 
> even caring to tell me. Sorry, but this is not the way I would treat anyone.

yeah, that page should mention that it's autogenerated. But basically
it's just indexing other data. I would assume that later on it will
index the debian archive too.

>>you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there,
>>if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been
>>modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version.
> 
> Right I just tried this, but found that I have to diff the diffs to find the 
> changes. Or did I miss something.

Atleast in the ubuntu version of the patch repo, they try to separate
packaging, changelog and other fixes. I wish they separated the
autotools modifications too (filtered out updated autotools and so on)
so that the rest of the changes would reflect the actual changes to the
package itself.

And apparently the utnubu repo uses the same logic :(

- - S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDyjV8qbb3MLg9dhwRAm21AKDhkjE3SiijYO4DagrWa3hUTFoddwCeLaKe
gpblzezEAJYQuSbZ1RfJoCc=
=ukzQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Michael Meskes]

> You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to
> modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear
> that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some

And why isn't this done? It's so simple to do. I would prefer to know about MY 
package in ubuntu before some user contacts me.

> other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
> the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
> modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
> go either way.

Wait a moment, just to clarify this, you mean if you take a Debian package 
change it for Ubuntu and let's say add your name to the maintainer field but 
also add an additional X-Debian-Mantainer field (for example) that lists the 
original maintainer, this will offend some fellow Debian maintainers? Anyone 
care to tell me why?

But still, I have no problem with my name in the Ubuntu packages, but I'd 
expect to know about this BEFORE it gets published. 

> And about pulling the changes, did you notice these:
> ...
> Ubuntu side:
> https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages

Whow! No, noone ever told me that I have an entry there that looks like it is 
my entry but instead is created and kept up-to-date by someone else without 
even caring to tell me. Sorry, but this is not the way I would treat anyone.

> you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there,
> if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been
> modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version.

Right I just tried this, but found that I have to diff the diffs to find the 
changes. Or did I miss something.

Again, this is not against Ubuntu, the distribution, but I would expect a 
different treatment of upstream authors. I wrote some pieces of software that 
are available with all/most Linux distributions. Noone told me about this 
either, but I'm fine with it because they all tell people that I am the 
upstream and they did the packaging.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Sunday 15 January 2006 10:27, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> What do you want?

Bugs filed in Debian's bts, with the patches attached and the rationale why 
this patch is done.

Just like many DD work with upstream, by pushing non-Debian changes back 
actively, and not just saying 'all are changes are in debian/patches in the 
source package, grab them if you want'.

See also the recent thread about that interaction between some Debian user, 
some KDE upstream people and the KDE Debian maintainers, where things went 
not as smoothly as they could.  Exactly the same problem.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
Could this mail be a fake? (Answer: No! - http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro)


pgpsj2ATaikVK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Sami Haahtinen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>  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.

They have their own timetable. They do their stabilization differently
than debian does. Ubuntu freezes the packages at a certain point in time
and only does manual syncs after that. "Regularly" could be once a year
and still be regular.

What do you want? decide which packages get to certain ubuntu release?
Didn't they just offer you that chance?

>>They are really investing time on the co-operation,
> 
>  If they were, why would there be so much fuss about it? Again, speaking
> for myself, I haven't noticed such a thing for myself, and there
> wouldn't be the need for utnubu if there were, don't you think so?

As i see it utnubu is the middle ground for debian and ubuntu people.
It's something that debian people want to do to keep up with Ubuntu. I
see utnubu as a good thing, it solves problems that the people behind
utnubu want to get solved. They decided to do the work instead of
throwing it back to Ubuntu and saying "It's your problem to make me
agree with you". As utnubu page says:
"We are about cooperation, not confrontation, with Ubuntu."

co-operation needs co-operation from both parties!

>>they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people
>>doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs
>>in to it.
> 
>  Why should I pull something from Ubuntu? And find most of the time that
> there isn't anything to pull? Why does it work for Debian that Debian
> notifies its Upstream Developers, but not for Ubuntu to notify its
> Upstream Developers, which in this case is Debian?

You are not forced to pull anything from Ubuntu. But you should remember
that the packages that are being worked on outside of the ubuntu main
are maintained by a small group (when compared to the people in debian)
of people. They have limited time to push all changes to upstream and
usually the changes are just for the packaging anyway.

Also, you should remember that there are people that have said that they
don't want to be in contact with ubuntu. So it's not an easy thing to
notify debian people about the changes in their packages when some
people get offended by the notification itself. If you have a solution
for this, let me know. Or better yet, let the Ubuntu people know.

>>It takes less effort to bitch and moan than to work together, maybe
>>that's the reason.
> 
>  I ask you: Why should I try to work together with someone who didn't
> had at least the sign of coursey to notify people they base their work
> on about what they are doing, or at least _that_ they are doing it? If I
> don't know that they are doing it, why should I get the idea about that
> it might be a good idea to work with them? I know what of my packages
> are in Debian, and everyone can get a list quite easily through several
> different interfaces. In the mail this fuss is all about there is only
> one huge list which does have only package names, no maintainer, no
> nothing that allowes for easy usage of that list. It might be useful for
> people maintaining one single package, but for people with 10 or more
> it's getting annoying to have to pull the data out from there

You do realize that your work is out there for anyone to take and to
modify. I agree that for the modified packages it should be more clear
that the package has been modified by ubuntu and the maintainer or some
other field should reflect that. But again, some people are offended if
the maintainer field is changed to something ubuntu specific for the
modified packages. As before it's not an easy task, you get burnt if you
go either way.

And about pulling the changes, did you notice these:

Debian side:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/libm/libmetakit2.4.9.3.html
http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/scottish/by_maint/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/large/

Ubuntu side:
https://launchpad.net/people/alfie/+packages

I had a hard time finding your packages that were modified in ubuntu, so
maybe that's something ubuntu people should work on. Other htan that,
you should easily be able to pull changes to your packages from there,
if you feel like it. A good indicator that your package has been
modifies in ubuntu is the string ubuntu in the package version.

- - S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDyhVvqbb3MLg9dhwRAvL8AJ9vzE0ty0xoYyL4AIwfXbOMNenDygCeJK+R
SJQ1rFsd+05NYBbQmk3heao=
=kqhs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Sami Haahtinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-14 18:20]:
> I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile
> against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was
> trying to achieve.

 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.

 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.

 These two very statements are on the very page that were linked in this
very misguided mail this fuss is all about.

> But what i can't understand is that people behind Ubuntu are trying to
> reach out and build a bridge between the people in Debian and some
> people are intentionally trying to burn them.

 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.

> They are really investing time on the co-operation,

 If they were, why would there be so much fuss about it? Again, speaking
for myself, I haven't noticed such a thing for myself, and there
wouldn't be the need for utnubu if there were, don't you think so?

> they are creating tools to help this. What are the Debian people
> doing, they are bitching about Ubuntu people not putting their backs
> in to it.

 Why should I pull something from Ubuntu? And find most of the time that
there isn't anything to pull? Why does it work for Debian that Debian
notifies its Upstream Developers, but not for Ubuntu to notify its
Upstream Developers, which in this case is Debian?

> I don't mean that there is no effort on Debian side either, but the
> visible effort (mostly because stunts like this) is mostly on the
> burning side.

 And not even that seems to make them show that there is something going
wrong. So what  *shrugs*

> It takes less effort to bitch and moan than to work together, maybe
> that's the reason.

 I ask you: Why should I try to work together with someone who didn't
had at least the sign of coursey to notify people they base their work
on about what they are doing, or at least _that_ they are doing it? If I
don't know that they are doing it, why should I get the idea about that
it might be a good idea to work with them? I know what of my packages
are in Debian, and everyone can get a list quite easily through several
different interfaces. In the mail this fuss is all about there is only
one huge list which does have only package names, no maintainer, no
nothing that allowes for easy usage of that list. It might be useful for
people maintaining one single package, but for people with 10 or more
it's getting annoying to have to pull the data out from there

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
"Die Angabe des vollständigen Realnamens erleichtert die Kommunikation
im Usenet ungemein, man kann sich dann nämlich auf die Inhalte der
Postings konzentrieren und muß nicht über Sinn/Unsinn von Pseudonymen
o.ä. diskutieren." (Ingo Ließegang, de.newusers.questions, 6.10.1999)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Jesus Climent]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 07:35:04PM +0100, Willi Mann wrote:
> 
> But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu 
> does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an 
> interest to include improvements of other distributions in their 
> packages (at least I do).

Maemo (from the Nokia 770 fame) contains Debian packages. But d-d-a is no
place to talk about it.

d-d-a is the list where information that concers to and MUST be known by all
DDs is sent. It might be of more or less relevance for some of us, but is
definitely not a place for "if you are interested" stuff.

The change of experimental, the h0x3r that we got in out machines, changes on
infrastructure... those are the things. Ah! and of course, the release of
etch.

-- 
Jesus Climent  info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.14|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429  7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69

I've decided what to do with my life. I wanna be a cleaner.
--Mathilda (Leon, the Cleaner)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Sami Haahtinen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
>>I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm
>>with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu
>>post was important to quite a few people.
> 
> Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few
> people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu
> stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not,
> then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't
> think "important to the subscribers" is the correct measure.

What i meant was that there are people in debian that moan and groan
about ubuntu not asking them about their packages, so the original post
was semi-justified because of that. i didn't mean that anything that
might interest the people on the list is fair game.

>>Burning bridges at all...
> I considered editing this out, but I'm quoting it instead because it's
> a neat bit of libel[0] in an attempt to change the subject. This is
> not about Ubuntu at all - it could have been *anybody*'s press release
> being reposted. This is about appropriate use of Debian mailing lists.

I was not trying to change the subject. At the time your response looked
like it was triggered by the name Ubuntu, which is not that uncommon on
the lists. Personally i didn't see it as a press release, it was an
informational mail directed at debian developers.

IMHO, the original post was semi-justified, your post was not.

> [0] I don't know who made this shit up, but as far as I'm aware it's
> purely fictional. We're objecting to Ubuntu's *PR*, and they're
> complaining that we're trying to stop collaberation? WTF?

I'm not saying that this is the official stand from either side. I keep
an eye on both lists and this is the picture that comes out. I would
assume that i'm not the only one that gets this picture just by reading
the lists.

- - S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDyU8eqbb3MLg9dhwRAvRGAKCEaJF9sFV30+nFZ4gbfTUgnAsNUACgkrNI
XhFOvHWXn++imv0jDmht8Is=
=YrA9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Russ Allbery]

Sami Haahtinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile
> against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was
> trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind
> Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in
> Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are
> really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to
> help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about
> Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it.

For those who are concerned with closer co-operation between Debian and
Ubuntu, lots of people have already tried to send a clear message.  The
best way to encourage and help this is to *stop posting things like the
above* and just go work on syncing changes.  Help with the work, don't
tell us what we do and don't believe.

As long as you keep accusing people of burning bridges or bitching about
other people's work, those of us who feel like we have legitimate concerns
tend to want to repeat them or try to explain them again.  The result is
that threads about the *differences* get longer and longer and accumulate
more posts, and as a result the gap looks wider and wider.

If, on the other hand, you'd accept that a lot of Debian developers really
care deeply about things like free software and aren't going to use tools
like Launchpad *but still want to co-operate*, stopped bringing up the
things that we disagree about, and started trying to improve communication
by taking a few Ubuntu fixes and filing them as Debian patches, or helping
with a Debian transition like the modular X transition that will obviate
the need for tons of divergence, or did something else concrete to bring
the distributions closer together, you'd find that many of the same people
who are arguing with you here would happily help.

Personally, I monitor the Ubuntu patches for all of my packages and apply
whatever looks reasonable.  Maybe it's not the best way to contribute back
changes, but it works fine for me.  It probably wouldn't if my packages
had more complex differences, so finding a better way to communicate those
complex differences would be valuable work.  If closer collaboration is
something you want to see, stop telling us that the only reason why we're
not working harder for Ubuntu is because we're jealous, *listen* to what
we're actually saying, and help synchronize the hard cases.

All this nattering on mailing lists doesn't make the software any better.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Willi Mann]

Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few
people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu
stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not,
then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't
think "important to the subscribers" is the correct measure.


But Windows security advisories don't contain debian packages. Ubuntu 
does contain close to all debian packages, and (I hope) most DDs have an 
interest to include improvements of other distributions in their 
packages (at least I do).


Willi


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 06:20:40PM +0200, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
> > people who can't understand sarcasm?
> 
> I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm
> with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu
> post was important to quite a few people.

Windows security advisories are surely important to quite a few
people, and probably to more readers of -devel-announce than Ubuntu
stuff. Are you saying that it would be okay to post these? If not,
then you need to rethink your reasoning here. Personally, I don't
think "important to the subscribers" is the correct measure.

> I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile
> against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was
> trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind
> Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in
> Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are
> really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to
> help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about
> Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it.

I considered editing this out, but I'm quoting it instead because it's
a neat bit of libel[0] in an attempt to change the subject. This is
not about Ubuntu at all - it could have been *anybody*'s press release
being reposted. This is about appropriate use of Debian mailing lists.

[0] I don't know who made this shit up, but as far as I'm aware it's
purely fictional. We're objecting to Ubuntu's *PR*, and they're
complaining that we're trying to stop collaberation? WTF?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Sami Haahtinen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
> people who can't understand sarcasm?

I read the part about sarcasm and i partially argee with you. But i'm
with Andreas here. Your post didn't help anyone, the original Ubuntu
post was important to quite a few people.

I can understand that a part of the people behind Debian feel hostile
against Ubuntu because it's succeeding in something that Debian was
trying to achieve. But what i can't understand is that people behind
Ubuntu are trying to reach out and build a bridge between the people in
Debian and some people are intentionally trying to burn them. They are
really investing time on the co-operation, they are creating tools to
help this. What are the Debian people doing, they are bitching about
Ubuntu people not putting their backs in to it.

I don't mean that there is no effort on Debian side either, but the
visible effort (mostly because stunts like this) is mostly on the
burning side.

It takes less effort to bitch and moan than to work together, maybe
that's the reason.

- - S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDySTYqbb3MLg9dhwRAt1cAJ9CYPBwwnUHH8/d2aqw5qOfjrG74wCguCzQ
nrB7CNRodc1YPs5Goe4doK4=
=V0lX
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [ad-hominem construct deleted]

[Andrew Suffield]

If you can't understand sarcasm, why didn't you read the part for
people who can't understand sarcasm?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature