On binary compatibility
I've read a lot about the binary incompatibility concern between Debian and Ubuntu. I have an idea, but I don't have the skill to implement it myself. I figured it would be useful to throw it out there for you all to scrutinize, determine the implementation feasibility, and perhaps run with. First of all, I think it is useful to analyze Ubuntu's motivation -- releasing well-integrated bleeding-edge software. The easiest way to accomplish this goal is by branching from sid. This means that Ubuntu libraries differ from the stable Debian release. Hence, Debian stable (and sid/testing) packages are incompatible with the Ubuntu libraries; thus creating the need for duplicate packaging work by both the Ubuntu and Debian communities. I think that Ubuntu's motivation to provide the latest software is reasonable; however, I think that Debian may be able to help to support that goal while making it possible to maintain binary compatibility. The solution would be to convince Ubuntu to branch from stable instead of sid. The problem is that this creates a lot of work for Ubuntu because they have to backport all of the desired bleeding-edge stuff. However, Debian developers could work with and contribute more to backports.org making it easier for Ubuntu. The most problematic software will be GNOME because it depends on the latest GTK which depends on newer low level libs, which would mean all of the above would need to be backported -- probably quite a significant undertaking. Maybe a solution would be to force the sid GNOME release (and hence the upstream GNOME) to use the Debian stable GTK. Obviously this would have some major political issues. How can we tell upstream what libraries they can and cannot use? Hardware support would be another issue. There would need to be a way to backport support for newer hardware, which may involve backporting newer kernels or backporting support for newer hardware into the stable kernel. The problem is that this solution is hard work for Debian, and I don't think that Ubuntu would take on the backporting challenge itself. It also means making backports.org an official Debian archive. The only way that this would work is if there are Debian folks willing to spend the time to work on backports of their packages. And there would need to be coordination with Ubuntu to determine which packages require backporting, and which can be kept as is. Well, anyway, these are my thoughts. I'm not a developer, and thus cannot see the issues beyond those described, and cannot take on this work myself, but I think that compatibility is a very desirable goal -- not only for Debian and Ubuntu, but for providing a stable platform for external software development on GNU/Linux. All too often I hear about "we don't support Linux because it's a moving platform," and "we can only support one version, so we choose red hat enterprise 3". I think thats rediculous. I think we can make it possible for software developers to create one release that will run on all distributions. One final open-ended question is: which consumes more resources? Duplicate packaging or backporting? I look forward to any insight and contributions. Mike Gilbert
Re: On binary compatibility
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, Michael Gilbert wrote: > First of all, I think it is useful to analyze Ubuntu's motivation -- > releasing well-integrated bleeding-edge software. The easiest way to > accomplish this goal is by branching from sid. This means that Ubuntu > libraries differ from the stable Debian release. Hence, Debian stable > (and sid/testing) packages are incompatible with the Ubuntu libraries; Most packages from sid and Ubuntu are compatible. > thus creating the need for duplicate packaging work by both the Ubuntu > and Debian communities. And in several cases, the work done by Ubuntu is reused by Debian and vice-versa. There's some duplicate work done but the idea is to reduce it and not to augment it (see reasoning below). > The solution would be to convince Ubuntu to branch from stable instead > of sid. The problem is that this creates a lot of work for Ubuntu Understand that Ubuntu is doing work on packages based on our sid packages. This means that the changes they do can (sometimes) be applied back to our sid packages where we *do* our work. In this way Ubuntu helps Debian. Their work would be almost useless if they did it on our stable version, since stable doesn't evolve in Debian. > undertaking. Maybe a solution would be to force the sid GNOME release > (and hence the upstream GNOME) to use the Debian stable GTK. This can't work. While we can discuss with upstream, we can't force anything. And any upstream has tons of good reasons to use newer libs... that's how we improve free software ! > Obviously this would have some major political issues. How can we Indeed. > backport support for newer hardware, which may involve backporting > newer kernels or backporting support for newer hardware into the > stable kernel. Which also means updating lots of utilities (udev, anyone?) and in fact your "stable" wouldn't be stable any more ... > One final open-ended question is: which consumes more resources? > Duplicate packaging or backporting? Backporting is a packaging work ... a special kind of it but backporting is not always straightforward and can't always be done without upgrading other softwares. So the answer is "it depends". In the end, I doubt that your proposal could work. You said in turn "it means more work for Ubuntu, it means more work for Debian and it requires to force upstream to use older libs". That's simply not possible. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On binary compatibility
Michael Gilbert wrote: > I've read a lot about the binary incompatibility concern between > Debian and Ubuntu. It is a design decision of ubuntu to ensure source code compatibility only. Binary compatibility to debian/stable is not a release goal. > I think that Ubuntu's motivation to provide the latest software is > reasonable; however, I think that Debian may be able to help to > support that goal while making it possible to maintain binary > compatibility. If you want to ensure binary compatibilty across distributions, I think a reasonable approach would be to work on lsb conformity on both distributions. > The solution would be to convince Ubuntu to branch from stable instead > of sid. It also means making backports.org an official Debian archive. This would be great, but, if backports.org get official, how do you cope with security updates withouth increasing the load of the security team seriously? > The only way that this would work is if there are Debian folks willing > to spend the time to work on backports of their packages. Many developers rather spend time developing debian/unstable. Developing on stable releases is not that much fun. > And there would need to be coordination with Ubuntu to determine which > packages require backporting, and which can be kept as is. Please note that debian and Ubuntu have completely different release cycles, different release goals and different workflows. Short: This wont work. > Well, anyway, these are my thoughts. While I understand your motivation, your proposal is not feasible. If you want to ensure binary compatibility, better work on lsb support. Greetings, Reinhard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On binary compatibility
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 07:56:42PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > The solution would be to convince Ubuntu to branch from stable instead > of sid. The problem is that this creates a lot of work for Ubuntu > because they have to backport all of the desired bleeding-edge stuff. > However, Debian developers could work with and contribute more to > backports.org making it easier for Ubuntu. This is not useful. If Ubuntu branches from sid, and, hypothetically, their packages work to produce new packages for X.Org and GNOME, then these can be contributed straight back to sid. If they're done against sarge, then the packages are not immediately useful to Debian. I don't see which problem you're trying to solve. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: On binary compatibility
Le jeudi 23 février 2006 à 19:56 -0500, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > One final open-ended question is: which consumes more resources? > Duplicate packaging or backporting? No, the question is how is the Ubuntu project willing to spend its resources. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
