Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. They obviously do. The version is bumped and a new changelog entry is added. Yes. And then the source used to build that binNMU is thrown away. It's a *binary* NMU, you don't see a sourceful upload with that. Which means the Maintainer field in the binary package could easily be changed. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years* before Ubuntu even existed? This never seemed to bother anyone, and personally, I don't think it's a big deal either. Xandros does not employ a significant number of people in important single-point-of-failure-positions in Debian, most notably not the people who are notoriously known for not doing the job they have volunteered for. Additionally, Xandros doesn't have nearly the user base that Ubuntu has, and they are not nearly as loud PR-wise as Ubuntu is. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:15:15PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:03:05 -0800, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years* before Ubuntu even existed? This never seemed to bother anyone, and personally, I don't think it's a big deal either. Xandros does not employ a significant number of people in important single-point-of-failure-positions in Debian, most notably not the people who are notoriously known for not doing the job they have volunteered for. Apart from its questionable accuracy, this is a red herring and has nothing to do with how derivatives should treat the Maintainer field. Additionally, Xandros doesn't have nearly the user base that Ubuntu has, and they are not nearly as loud PR-wise as Ubuntu is. Likewise, I don't think that the popularity of a derivative is an important consideration on this point. What exactly do you consider loud PR? Ubuntu doesn't exactly mount campaigns; what messaging there is is by word of mouth. Other Debian derivatives buy ad space on Google keywords like Debian. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices than Ubuntu. How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter? How does it not matter? -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* 1 FETCH (BODY[TEXT] {1008}
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote:
In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when
Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is
OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source
(that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu) doesn't need to be change
since it's the same source code that runs on Debian.
But linked against other libraries. The binary is downloaded from another
location(or installed from a different cd set). The program used to do the
download may be different.
Using this as rule, then all Debian CDD distributions would need to
recompile all sources to change the maintainer field. This include
Debian-EDU, Debian-BR-CDD and others. That's what you think is
correct?
In case of CDDs, the only exception is it isn't build against other
libraries but it is installed by different cd set and downloaded from
another location in many cases.
--
O T A V I OS A L V A D O R
-
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
-
Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: But linked against other libraries. The binary is downloaded from another location(or installed from a different cd set). The program used to do the download may be different. Using this as rule, then all Debian CDD distributions would need to recompile all sources to change the maintainer field. I'm sorry if we agree that a CDD is what we defined under http://people.debian.org/~tille/cdd/ch-about.en.html#s-CDD then no change is necessary. To clarify a common misunderstanding: Custom Debian Distributions are not forks from Debian. They are completely included, and if you obtain the complete Debian GNU/Linux distribution, you have all available Custom Debian Distributions included. (I know that the name CDD is very confusing and many people think that it is something else.) In case of CDDs, the only exception is it isn't build against other libraries but it is installed by different cd set and downloaded from another location in many cases. If it is a CDD than it is installed from a Debian mirror and nothing else. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In case of CDDs, the only exception is it isn't build against other libraries but it is installed by different cd set and downloaded from another location in many cases. If it is a CDD than it is installed from a Debian mirror and nothing else. Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they need to do more updated that aren't allowed in our stable versions. In that case, they would need to recompile all source again to change the maintainer field. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they Well, that's a temporary hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. You quite obviously haven't read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I wrote (among other important things), it would be fairly straightforward for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages. I explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom. Wow, is this ever silly. Of course I read it and I appreciate your position that it's more work than not doing anything different from what you're doing now but I simply disagree about it and it seems like a pretty straight-forward solution to implement. I also understand that not all Debian derivatives are changing the Maintainer field and that Debian's not specifically chastising them for it. There are reasons for each though. Other Debian derivatives aren't (or at least, don't seem) as popular so it's less of an issue; other derivatives don't come across as pulling resources away from Debian (which Ubuntu seems to be doing, reality aside, that's the perception); other derivatives didn't ask and sometimes that's just the burden you have to bear when you're actively trying to do the right thing; other derivatives (some portion of them anyway, I expect) don't recompile packages (which makes leaving the Maintainer field alone somewhat less of an offense to some). If you're going to attack me, please do it on the basis of what I've actually said. Honestly, I expected better from you, give that you've acted like a human being toward me on IRC on several occasions in the past. Funny, I didn't think I was attacking you at all. Rereading what you quoted above I really don't see how that's an attack and I'm afraid perhaps you've gotten a little sensitive on this. I'm happy enough to excuse that as I'm sure you've gotten a fair number of poor reactions from others. Looking through my other emails on the subject it seems perhaps unkind of me to say you're ignoring the answer but, well, that's how it's coming across. :/ Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other derivative, it's a significant operation on its own. Its commercial backer is apparently able to pay quite a few Debian developers, several of them among the core team. There is a significant user base, and so on. Like it or not, Ubuntu is a bit special. I can't accept this; if there is no principle here which should be applied consistently, then it's entirely unfair to attack Ubuntu. Certainly, there are things about Ubuntu which are unique, but none of them change the issues at hand. Personally I think the principle *should* be applied consistently but as a volunteer and with generally not much time I'm not going to hunt down every Debian derivative out there, see what they do and complain at them if they're not doing it the right way. I doubt it'd have any effect in the majority of the cases anyway. Ubuntu, by trying to do the right thing (which many of us appreciate) and by asking the question of what *should* be done has put themselves in a position where if they don't do what 'should' be done, regardless of what others do, they're going to seem like bad guys. Also, I'm afraid, given Ubuntu's popularity and the impression (unfounded or not) that Ubuntu is taking resources away from Debian is going to mean Ubuntu will be held to a higher standard than other derivatives. I think many of us would like to see Ubuntu be the best derivative and always do the right thing and that's why there's more pressure on Ubuntu than other derivatives. Seriously, it's entirely unreasonable to single out Ubuntu on this issue. Perhaps so, but then Ubuntu's just another derivative and not the derivative many of us would like to see it be, and I expect the derivative that Ubuntu itself would like to be from a PR standpoint. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. However if a binNMU screws up a maintainer's package, the maintainer can easily fix it, and doing so is just part of contributing to Debian. The same thing applies when an autobuild on another architecture happens. That's not the case if an Ubuntu rebuild screws things up. Let me make it clear that this is not only a hypothetical worry, it's actually happened. (Sorry to people who already saw my similar email sent to -project, but I thought the point was worth repeating.) One of my packages (binary package paw, from source package cernlib) has seriously broken functionality in Breezy because it was compiled with a buggy version of gcc. The breakage did not appear in Debian until later [1], since Ubuntu switched to gcc-3.4 before Debian switched from 3.3 to 4.0. Once the breakage occurred in Debian I promptly uploaded a workaround and filed a bug on gcc [2]. Since paw is not very widely used, no one was bitten by the bug in Ubuntu until recently. An Ubuntu user emailed me about it [3] upon finding my name in the package maintainer field (and also asked upstream about it). If the Maintainer field included something like ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com, instead of keeping my name and email, I imagine the question would have worked its way to me eventually, but without first making it look like I must be clueless not to have fixed such an obvious bug. References: [1] the Debian bug report on paw: http://bugs.debian.org/324902 [2] the Debian bug report I filed on gcc: http://bugs.debian.org/325050 [3] the Ubuntu bug report on paw: https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/cernlib/+bug/6588 (the user who filed the bug was nice enough to add my emailed response to him as the second reply in the Launchpad entry) regards, - -- Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDznTYfYxAIk+Dx1ERAn3UAKDI/W2yvJOcQyaH7UXeaps+cVCW1gCbBqjo nfcPVa0Yk+bz2hG/oXd8MM8= =xHNq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices than Ubuntu. How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter? How does it not matter? Because tu quoque is a fallacy, and is quoque is even more one. The fact that many people do a bad thing does not make the badness of John Doe's doing it any better. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they Well, that's a temporary hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. But exist! -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and over, is my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in general. But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated tools. I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to change the maintainer field with that. Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. They obviously do. The version is bumped and a new changelog entry is added. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new version numbers. In Debian yes. Ubuntu recompiles the Debian source, in a different environment and with different dependencies, then uploads with exactly the same version as Debian. Having two different package files with the exactly the same name and different content and dependencies drove me crazy for a while until we made our migration scripts smarter. --Mike Bird Andreas Barth has some patches for the debian policy and packaging manual from me under review that also include this situation. In short it adds (explains the existing) an optional fourth (sub)part to the debian version: [epoch:]upstream_version[-debian_revision[+branch]] The debian_revision may contain an additional branch suffix denoting a fork in the debian version number. I suggest 4 types of branches [abcs]: - 1.2-3+a0.ubuntu.1 - recompile of a package without changes - 1.2-3+b1 - debian binary only recompile - 1.2-3+c0.ubuntu.1 - patched source based on the debian version - 1.2-3+s1.sarge.1 - debian security upload If that gets accepted into policy I suggest asking all debian based distributions to use the 'a' or 'c' branch to correctly flag recompiles and patching. Using the distribution name in the branch should give an unique enough version to avoid any confusion about the origin. An unbranched version should always mean the binary is unmodified (the md5sum matches debians). MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Well, that's a temporary hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. But exist! Sure they exist, but the statement you made about the maintainer field was simply wrong, because it makes no sense to change the maintainer field of Debian internal packages. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new version numbers. The source packages don't. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to change the maintainer field with that. Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that context. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 05:29:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new version numbers. The source packages don't. What are you talking about? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to change the maintainer field with that. Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that context. Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. They obviously do. The version is bumped and a new changelog entry is added. Yes. And then the source used to build that binNMU is thrown away. It's a *binary* NMU, you don't see a sourceful upload with that. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:28:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to change the maintainer field with that. Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that context. Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do! Please show me which part of wanna-build or sbuild modifies a source package. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:57:51PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. They obviously do. The version is bumped and a new changelog entry is added. Yes. And then the source used to build that binNMU is thrown away. It's a *binary* NMU, you don't see a sourceful upload with that. And yet the version number is changed, and the recorded changelog is altered too (which does land in the binary package as a rule). So this is the point: these are crucial things that allow tracking of different binary version of the same source, and it is these things which we would like to see. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Don't you run wanna-build, buildd and sbuild? It is easy enough to change the maintainer field with that. Not in the source package, which is what was being discussed in that context. Huh? Actually, you'll find, they do! Please show me which part of wanna-build or sbuild modifies a source package. The binary NMU process does this for *rebuilt* binaries, after the first. I refer to the end effect of Debian's normal procedures, not the particular tools used to effect these results. I do not recall which tool does it, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that wanna-build and/or sbuild was the tool in question. Debian's normal procedure is that the first build of a package for an arch gets a version number copied from the source, but all future builds that are installed into the archive have an altered version number. All Ubuntu rebuilds are future builds in this way, and so they should all get an altered version number. It would be particularly pleasant and helpful if they contained a version number that was labelled ubuntu in some respect. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matthew Garrett wrote: Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: they should reset the Maintainer field to point to themselves, and continue to give credit to the Debian developer in a suitable fashion. The founder of Debian seems to disagree, but still. The DCCA situation suggests that we need to define exactly what we want and make it clear to all derived distributions that this is what we expect. This isn't something that only affects Ubuntu - we're talking about a large number of fairly major distributions. Come on, Matthew, that's a slight misrepresentation, now isn't it? Matthew is right that this has been common practice for as long as derivatives have been around (6-7 years now)--it's just that Ubuntu takes derivation much further than any of the rest of us have done, so the problem is a bit more pronounced for Ubuntu. Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I'm aware of it. -ian -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ Don't look back--something might be gaining on you. --Satchel Paige -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:43:48PM -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I'm aware of it. Ah, my apologies. I'd assumed it was something that you'd probably have thought about, so I'll happily withdraw that. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:54:22 -0200 Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: Debian-EDU is available in Debian but also outside of it since they Well, that's a temporary hack until we have implemented solutions which makes this superfluous. But exist! I consider Debian-edu as in the development proces of becoming a CDD, exactly because they still need such hacks. Until all of the packages needed for a Debian-edu release is contained completely within Debian (possibly a mix of stable, testing and unstable), they need to host some packages outside of Debian and is thus not a CDD by the definitions set by debian-custom. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDzvZWn7DbMsAkQLgRAlL/AJ9mv14M5TB+sgUZ+THN46DZaPjfLgCdF4MB BPEOJWK6tbFRaKcVEFsChnY= =bL72 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Ian Murdock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fact is, the potential for confusion here never even occurred to me when we started doing this at Progeny. Quite the contrary to what Matthew suggests, it seems to me that changing the Maintainer field is a perfectly reasonable thing to do now that I'm aware of it. Glad to hear. Is there anyone from Debian who thinks that changing the Maintainer field is a bad idea in these cases (remember that this isn't about credit, because we would certainly request that the Debian maintainer still be mentioned as such in a suitable fashion)? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Is there anyone from Debian who thinks that changing the Maintainer field is a bad idea in these cases (remember that this isn't about credit, because we would certainly request that the Debian maintainer still be mentioned as such in a suitable fashion)? So deep in a thread that certainly can be called a flamewar, you probably need to quietly ask this elsewhere if you want answers from a real majority of ppl..:-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. As I've pointed out before, this also just plain isn't Debian's problem. You keep asking for Debian to tell you what 'should' be in the Maintainer field but then you're ignoring the answer because you think it's hard. It's pretty clear what 'Debian' thinks *should* be in the field, or at least what most people would agree with; sorry that it's not the simple answer you want but you asked. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Yes. Being a downstream modifier imposes costs. Debian meets those costs, how about you? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source (that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu) doesn't need to be change since it's the same source code that runs on Debian. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio - Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote: Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright file. Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone from their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place). I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Modify the incoming processor, so that the Packages and Sources files get the correct info. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote: Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright file. Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone from their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place). I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Actually, ignore my last mail. I actually considered that you(ubuntu) would respond thusly. But, it doesn't fly. We don't allow J. Random Upstream to upload unchanged source into Debian. We add meta-data, and set the Maintainer field appropriately. This is so that Debian becomes the contact for the software, when it exists in Debian. Debian derivaties need to do the same. There really is no other way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Otavio Salvador wrote: In my point of view, maintainer field just need to be change when Ubuntu does a non-trivial change on it. Otherwise, at least to me, is OK to leave the maintainer field unchanged. Directly imported source (that will be just recompiled by Ubuntu) doesn't need to be change since it's the same source code that runs on Debian. But linked against other libraries. The binary is downloaded from another location(or installed from a different cd set). The program used to do the download may be different. While the above list may not be all inclusive, it's enough to warrant changing the Maintainer field to something ubuntu specific. Debian doesn't set the upstream author in the Maintainer field, when the changes only amount to adding a debian directory to the upstream source. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:47PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Yes. Being a downstream modifier imposes costs. Debian meets those costs, how about you? We really don't need a stand-in for Andrew Suffield while he's away. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:07:25PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: You're already rebuilding the package, which I expect entails possible Depends: line changes and other things which would pretty clearly 'normally' entail different Debian package revision numbers; changing the Maintainer field at the same time is just not that hard, *especially* when you're rebuilding the package. You're implying that this is alot of work and it's just not. It's also not 'forking' in any real sense of the word. You don't even have to change the version number if you don't want to. When done in Debian, it's also not even a new source package (in general anyway) as the thing which has the Maintainer field is actually the patch. You quite obviously haven't read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I wrote (among other important things), it would be fairly straightforward for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages. I explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom. If you're going to attack me, please do it on the basis of what I've actually said. Honestly, I expected better from you, give that you've acted like a human being toward me on IRC on several occasions in the past. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 03:50:09PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Matt Zimmerman wrote: Debian developers set the Maintainer field to themselves(or a team), when they upload to Debian. The upstream author is only mentioned in the copyright file. Ubuntu should do something similiar. Set the Maintainer field to someone from their group, and mention debian in the copyright(or other appropriate place). I would very much appreciate if folks would review http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html and consider the points that I raise there. I put some effort into collating the issues which came up the last time and presenting them. It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Modify the incoming processor, so that the Packages and Sources files get the correct info. The .dsc and .diff.gz would still have the original values, and the copyright file can't be modified this way. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
* Matt Zimmerman: It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Such a change could be implemented in the toolchain. IIRC, you rebuild everything anyway, so this wouldn't be such a terrible thing to do. FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other derivative, it's a significant operation on its own. Its commercial backer is apparently able to pay quite a few Debian developers, several of them among the core team. There is a significant user base, and so on. Like it or not, Ubuntu is a bit special. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You quite obviously haven't read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html yet, where I wrote (among other important things), it would be fairly straightforward for Ubuntu to override the Maintainer field in binary packages. I explained exactly what is and isn't difficult and for whom. Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and over, is my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in general. But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated tools. Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. If you were not recompiling, then no modification would be necessary. Moreover, what about category (2), packages which are modified? Since you are making a new source package *anyway*, why is it so expensive? In response to your questions, as if they haven't been answered: If a binary package is built by a third party from unmodified Debian sources, should its Maintainer field be kept the same as the source package, or set to the name and address of the third party? If the third party has their own bug-tracking system, then the Maintainer field should probably be changed. The original Debian Maintainer should still be acknowledged. Should Debian-derived distributions change the Maintainer field in source packages which are modified relative to Debian? If so, should this be done in all cases, or only if the modifications are non-trivial? In absolutely every case, the Maintainer field should be changed if you have altered the source in any respect. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:34:33AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: * Matt Zimmerman: It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Such a change could be implemented in the toolchain. IIRC, you rebuild everything anyway, so this wouldn't be such a terrible thing to do. We don't rebuild every source package, which is what the proposal was about (modifying source packages). I outlined the options and their costs as I saw them here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html FWIW, I think your implied assumption that all Debian derivatives should be treated the same is flawed. Ubuntu is just not like any other derivative, it's a significant operation on its own. Its commercial backer is apparently able to pay quite a few Debian developers, several of them among the core team. There is a significant user base, and so on. Like it or not, Ubuntu is a bit special. I can't accept this; if there is no principle here which should be applied consistently, then it's entirely unfair to attack Ubuntu. Certainly, there are things about Ubuntu which are unique, but none of them change the issues at hand. Do you realize that Xandros, who maintains a Debian derivative which they box and sell for US$50-$129 per copy, leaves the Maintainer field unmodified, and as far as I'm aware, was doing so for a period of *years* before Ubuntu even existed? This never seemed to bother anyone, and personally, I don't think it's a big deal either. Seriously, it's entirely unreasonable to single out Ubuntu on this issue. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Ubuntu is different in that they rebuild all packages, not just the one they changes. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 06:19:32PM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:44:48AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: It is important, in particular, to account for the fact that Ubuntu is not the only Debian derivative, and that proposals like yours would amount to Debian derivatives being obliged to fork *every source package in Debian* for the sake of changing a few lines of text. Ubuntu is different in that they rebuild all packages, not just the one they changes. The matter at hand above was source packages, not binary packages. Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices than Ubuntu. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices than Ubuntu. How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter? As a rule, those other derivatives do not cooperate with Debian. If Ubuntu wants to be like them, fine, but don't say you cooperate with Debian if that's what you want to do. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and over, is my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in general. But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated tools. I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Moreover, what about category (2), packages which are modified? Since you are making a new source package *anyway*, why is it so expensive? If you re-read your own quote above, you'll see that I was talking about otherwise-unmodified source packages, not source packages which were modified anyway, and if you re-read http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html, you'll see that my second question simply asked whether this would be appropriate. In response to your questions, as if they haven't been answered: So far I've received two clear responses in this thread. I do like jvw's idea of setting up a poll, and that will be a much more effective way to collect opinions on this. I've sent him my proposed options for the poll. I do expect, however, for this decision to be taken with regard to all Debian derivatives, and not to single out Ubuntu with a different set of criteria. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. It's really a very short perl script, or a simple modification in C to the dpkg-building tools. Indeed, if you said, hey, we would like to do this, but need someone to write the tool for us you might well find volunteers. Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new version numbers. I do expect, however, for this decision to be taken with regard to all Debian derivatives, and not to single out Ubuntu with a different set of criteria. No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it cooperates fully with Debian. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new version numbers. In Debian yes. Ubuntu recompiles the Debian source, in a different environment and with different dependencies, then uploads with exactly the same version as Debian. Having two different package files with the exactly the same name and different content and dependencies drove me crazy for a while until we made our migration scripts smarter. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 17:29, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. Actually, binary-only NMUs, after the first compilation, *do* get new version numbers. In Debian yes. Ubuntu recompiles the Debian source, in a different environment and with different dependencies, then uploads with exactly the same version as Debian. Right. I was contradicting Matt's statement that This isn't even the case within Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:38:29PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Notice that what you say, in response to what has been asked over and over, is my opinion is that changing the Maintainer field on otherwise-unmodified source packages is too costly for derivatives in general. But you say nothing about why. You already have suitable automated tools. I don't think you can speak to what tools we do or do not have. The fact is, we import most Debian source packages unmodified, and do not have any such tool for modifying them. Huh? Of course you do -- it's called make. Since you are rebuilding the package, you *must* change the version number *anyway*. It is not correct to recompile, and leave the version number alone. I don't agree. This isn't even the case within Debian. Binary-only NMUs don't modify the source package, even though the binaries are recompiled. However if a binNMU screws up a maintainer's package, the maintainer can easily fix it, and doing so is just part of contributing to Debian. The same thing applies when an autobuild on another architecture happens. That's not the case if an Ubuntu rebuild screws things up. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it cooperates fully with Debian. Other than, say, the DCC Alliance? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No other Debian derivative, as far as I'm aware, says that it cooperates fully with Debian. Other than, say, the DCC Alliance? I wasn't aware of them until just now. :) Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of Debian. Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues discussed in this thread? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Other than, say, the DCC Alliance? I wasn't aware of them until just now. :) Wow! Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of Debian. Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues discussed in this thread? The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some backports. In all cases, the Maintainer: field appears to be the same as in Debian. Several derived distributions (gnuLinEx, Knoppix, Mepis, Linspire, Progency, Sun-Wah, UserLinux (ha ha ha) and Xandros) are supposed to be using these packages in an unmodified form, as I understand it. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Interestingly, the DCC Alliance says that it wants to become part of Debian. Do you have information on their plans with respect to the issues discussed in this thread? The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some backports. In all cases, the Maintainer: field appears to be the same as in Debian. Several derived distributions (gnuLinEx, Knoppix, Mepis, Linspire, Progency, Sun-Wah, UserLinux (ha ha ha) and Xandros) are supposed to be using these packages in an unmodified form, as I understand it. Have they modified these packages? What do they do about version numbering of recompilations? (Do they recompile?) Do they modify the packages at all? It seems like they aren't doing the things which annoy me in the case of Ubuntu, but it's possible I don't understand enough. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:41PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The DCCA distribution is a mixture of packages from Sarge plus some backports. In all cases, the Maintainer: field appears to be the same as in Debian. Several derived distributions (gnuLinEx, Knoppix, Mepis, Linspire, Progency, Sun-Wah, UserLinux (ha ha ha) and Xandros) are supposed to be using these packages in an unmodified form, as I understand it. Have they modified these packages? Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports. What do they do about version numbering of recompilations? (Do they recompile?) They have to recompile the backports, at least. I haven't checked the MD5s of the binaries, but that's easy enough to do. Do they modify the packages at all? As stated, in some cases yes. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have they modified these packages? Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports. What happens to the maintainer field in these cases? Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: they should reset the Maintainer field to point to themselves, and continue to give credit to the Debian developer in a suitable fashion. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:32:20PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have they modified these packages? Some of them, yes. Mostly the backports. What happens to the maintainer field in these cases? I haven't seen any that have been changed. Certainly, if they are modifying the packages, I would think the same there here applies as in the case of Ubuntu: they should reset the Maintainer field to point to themselves, and continue to give credit to the Debian developer in a suitable fashion. The founder of Debian seems to disagree, but still. The DCCA situation suggests that we need to define exactly what we want and make it clear to all derived distributions that this is what we expect. This isn't something that only affects Ubuntu - we're talking about a large number of fairly major distributions. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:36PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Besides which, do you honestly know which packages other Debian derivatives rebuild? As a rule, they are far less communicative about their practices than Ubuntu. How does the behavior of other Debian derivatives matter? As a rule, those other derivatives do not cooperate with Debian. If Ubuntu wants to be like them, fine, but don't say you cooperate with Debian if that's what you want to do. To be fair, co-operation and attribution are really separate issues. We do need to be consistent about each. Any complaint we have about co-operation with Ubuntu should not mean we have special requirements with regard to attribution. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
