Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Dec 8, 2007 4:47 AM, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:42:56PM +0100, Cesare Tirabassi wrote: On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:27:28 C.J. Adams-Collier wrote: Do you feel that it is appropriate to copy someone else's changelog entry verbatim without giving credit to the original author? I guess you refer to mono-addins, for which I prepared an SRU in Ubuntu, using the patches provided by Mirco? Yes, I partly used his changelog because, quite frankly, what was the point of changing it? Its the author's changelog and for him it reflected best the content of the change, beside it ties with the history of the package. For those not familiar with our SRU, we apply the changes in the development version (in this case from the new Debian version) to solve a problem in our stable release. If you look at the bug report this should be clearer to you: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mono-addins/+bug/149485 In summary, I made the (evidently wrong) assumption that it was clear that this was a backport of an issue already fixed in Debian. So, in retrospect, yes, it would have been clearer to quote the source in the changelog, something that I won't forget in the future. I've now adjusted the Ubuntu stable release updates documentation to explicitly say: As with any upload, the changelog entry must properly credit the author of the change, if it was not originally made by you. I hope this will avoid such mistakes in the future. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you Colin. I feel that it would be a prudent move for the debian documentation to be adjusted to reflect the same. Cheers, C.J. -- moo.
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
Hi, On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 12:16:12PM -0800, C.J. Adams-Collier wrote: I'm sorry, what is an SRU? with Google the first hit I found by earching for SRU+Ubuntu was [1], so I think this are updates to a stable Ubuntu release. Best Regards, Patrick [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:42:56PM +0100, Cesare Tirabassi wrote: On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:27:28 C.J. Adams-Collier wrote: Do you feel that it is appropriate to copy someone else's changelog entry verbatim without giving credit to the original author? I guess you refer to mono-addins, for which I prepared an SRU in Ubuntu, using the patches provided by Mirco? Yes, I partly used his changelog because, quite frankly, what was the point of changing it? Its the author's changelog and for him it reflected best the content of the change, beside it ties with the history of the package. For those not familiar with our SRU, we apply the changes in the development version (in this case from the new Debian version) to solve a problem in our stable release. If you look at the bug report this should be clearer to you: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mono-addins/+bug/149485 In summary, I made the (evidently wrong) assumption that it was clear that this was a backport of an issue already fixed in Debian. So, in retrospect, yes, it would have been clearer to quote the source in the changelog, something that I won't forget in the future. I've now adjusted the Ubuntu stable release updates documentation to explicitly say: As with any upload, the changelog entry must properly credit the author of the change, if it was not originally made by you. I hope this will avoid such mistakes in the future. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 13:42 +0100, Cesare Tirabassi wrote: On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:27:28 C.J. Adams-Collier wrote: Thank you for taking the time to respond Cesare, No problem at all. I asked for your input not for your association with a particular group, but because of your first-hand experience with the subject matter. OK, it would have been better to clarify it, I understood this to be a thread on new Ubuntu packages being imported to Debian and since I've done some myself I thought it was one of those. I often find it easier to place blame on another party than to consider that I am responsible for the same things which I accuse them of. I was trying to demonstrate this point to the members of this list, and failed to consider your feelings in the process. I should have been more forthright. I apologize and I hope that you can forgive me for my insensitivity. Do you feel that it is appropriate to copy someone else's changelog entry verbatim without giving credit to the original author? I guess you refer to mono-addins, for which I prepared an SRU in Ubuntu, using the patches provided by Mirco? Correct. Yes, I partly used his changelog because, quite frankly, what was the point of changing it? Its the author's changelog and for him it reflected best the content of the change, beside it ties with the history of the package. For those not familiar with our SRU, we apply the changes in the development version (in this case from the new Debian version) to solve a problem in our stable release. I'm sorry, what is an SRU? If you look at the bug report this should be clearer to you: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mono-addins/+bug/149485 sadly, I do not have the time required to review this bug report. In summary, I made the (evidently wrong) assumption that it was clear that this was a backport of an issue already fixed in Debian. If we had the time to review the full documentation, we may not have even brought this up. It is a sad fact that we often do not have the resources required for due diligence, and we rely on maintainers to perform it on our behalf, documenting their progress as they go. So, in retrospect, yes, it would have been clearer to quote the source in the changelog, something that I won't forget in the future. Thank you. This was the result I was hoping for. Do you think that doing so is similar to plagiarism? Can you understand why the author who performed the work might feel violated? Quite frankly, no. Perhaps this is because you did not intend to claim Mirco's work as your own? It seems that you do not consider including his work completed log without mentioning his name to be the same as claiming that you performed this work. I think this is the crux of the issue. Those that read the changelog entry will mistakenly assume that you did the work mentioned therein. Since you did not intend to claim his work as your own, you do not consider it plagiarism. However, this does not change the fact that reality does not line up with your intent. This seems to be a failing of the system. When importing a change from upstream, it seems that the changelog should be auto-generated and include mention of the upstream author. In this way, there is less room for human error. I have seen patches or even packages from me (not talking about a changelog entry) who have not been recognised in any way. I certainly don't feel plagiated (I would have appreciated it obviously); again, we are not talking here about a new fix, its a fix backported to an old release. Others making the same mistakes does not mean that the mistake is not a mistake. Many people speed and drive drunk. This does not make these actions legal. Personally, I have always strived to recognised the work done by others (just as an example look at the changelog of rutilt which is one of my packages being imported to Debian): https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rutilt Feel free to browse all the patches I have applied: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~norsetto/?field.searchtext=orderby=-importancesearch=Searchfield.status%3Alist=FIXRELEASEDassignee_option=anyfield.assignee=field.bug_reporter=field.bug_contact=field.bug_commenter=field.subscriber=field.status_upstream-empty-marker=1field.omit_dupes.used=field.omit_dupes=onfield.has_patch.used=field.tag=field.has_cve.used= for further examples. I understand that you may not have intended to transgress, disrespect or otherwise harm the upstream maintainer. Well, if that would have been the case I would indeed be a very poor person. I prefer not to make such judgments. We all have our reasons for making poor decisions. However, you should be aware that your actions have consequences, and that the work performed by others should be respected and acknowledged. I don't quite understand why this has been blow out to this proportion. Wouldn't
Re: communication, friendlyness, DDs (Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:11:00AM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:46:49AM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, then it was meant to be. But I was really annoyed by such a statement, That rather implies you were unfriendly, at least I'm often (too) unfriendly, Misusing then and than can cause confusion. If it is read as ... than it was meant to be. it takes on an entirely different meaning. :-) Good point, I read the wrong meaning too. yes, after all I see that I was making a mistake here. Off course the really meant word was than, so the sentence should read: Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, than it was meant to be. And, to nitpick further, you also ought to leave out the comma before than. (With then, the comma is correct.) Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: communication, friendlyness, DDs (Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging)
Hi, On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:46:49AM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, then it was meant to be. But I was really annoyed by such a statement, That rather implies you were unfriendly, at least I'm often (too) unfriendly, Misusing then and than can cause confusion. If it is read as ... than it was meant to be. it takes on an entirely different meaning. :-) Good point, I read the wrong meaning too. yes, after all I see that I was making a mistake here. Off course the really meant word was than, so the sentence should read: Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, than it was meant to be. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:27:28 C.J. Adams-Collier wrote: Thank you for taking the time to respond Cesare, No problem at all. I asked for your input not for your association with a particular group, but because of your first-hand experience with the subject matter. OK, it would have been better to clarify it, I understood this to be a thread on new Ubuntu packages being imported to Debian and since I've done some myself I thought it was one of those. Do you feel that it is appropriate to copy someone else's changelog entry verbatim without giving credit to the original author? I guess you refer to mono-addins, for which I prepared an SRU in Ubuntu, using the patches provided by Mirco? Yes, I partly used his changelog because, quite frankly, what was the point of changing it? Its the author's changelog and for him it reflected best the content of the change, beside it ties with the history of the package. For those not familiar with our SRU, we apply the changes in the development version (in this case from the new Debian version) to solve a problem in our stable release. If you look at the bug report this should be clearer to you: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mono-addins/+bug/149485 In summary, I made the (evidently wrong) assumption that it was clear that this was a backport of an issue already fixed in Debian. So, in retrospect, yes, it would have been clearer to quote the source in the changelog, something that I won't forget in the future. Do you think that doing so is similar to plagiarism? Can you understand why the author who performed the work might feel violated? Quite frankly, no. I have seen patches or even packages from me (not talking about a changelog entry) who have not been recognised in any way. I certainly don't feel plagiated (I would have appreciated it obviously); again, we are not talking here about a new fix, its a fix backported to an old release. Personally, I have always strived to recognised the work done by others (just as an example look at the changelog of rutilt which is one of my packages being imported to Debian): https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rutilt Feel free to browse all the patches I have applied: https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/~norsetto/?field.searchtext=orderby=-importancesearch=Searchfield.status%3Alist=FIXRELEASEDassignee_option=anyfield.assignee=field.bug_reporter=field.bug_contact=field.bug_commenter=field.subscriber=field.status_upstream-empty-marker=1field.omit_dupes.used=field.omit_dupes=onfield.has_patch.used=field.tag=field.has_cve.used= for further examples. I understand that you may not have intended to transgress, disrespect or otherwise harm the upstream maintainer. Well, if that would have been the case I would indeed be a very poor person. However, you should be aware that your actions have consequences, and that the work performed by others should be respected and acknowledged. I don't quite understand why this has been blow out to this proportion. Wouldn't a simple email sent to me saying: Hey, I think you forgot to quote me in the changelog have been more than enough? Since we are on the subject of respecting the work done by others, let me point your attention to bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=447342 linked to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/monodevelop/+bug/123182 which has not even be acknowledged. I have sent it to you because I'd really appreciate to have your opinion. Again, thank you for taking part in this conversation. No problem at all, better clarify this. Cesare -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
Hi Miriam, On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:35:31PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: While I do believe that, as a general rule, it's much better to keep old changelog entries, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal at all toremove them (IANAL) as long as you keep the copyright statements. It might not be polite, but it definitely doesn't look illegal. yes, you are right. Someone already made that clear and I noticed that I must have confused something. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:35:31PM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote: 2007/12/2, Patrick Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 1) Copyright / license issues: By removing important information from the previous packaging you might insult the packaging license. Redistribution in Debian might therefore be illegal. While I do believe that, as a general rule, it's much better to keep old changelog entries, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal at all toremove them (IANAL) as long as you keep the copyright statements. It might not be polite, but it definitely doesn't look illegal. The illegal part is distribution of the code without a license. If you violate the GPL, it is invalid (so you can't distribute the code using it). So if removing the ChangeLog entries is a violation of the GPL, it is indeed illegal to distribute that code. Why would it be in violation of the license? Because of 5a (of GPL3, GPL2 has a similar statement), which says: The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. It doesn't actually say that you must keep intact these notices made by others before you. So as long as there is a ChangeLog entry for the latest modifications, I think the rest can be removed legally speaking (but IANAL). Of course with other licenses there may be other terms. I'm not sure if we consider a license DFSG-free if it would require keeping all ChangeLog entries intact. It reminds me of the invariant sections discussion for the GFDL. :-) Ah well, as long as no such license is seen, there's no need to make up our minds. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: communication, friendlyness, DDs (Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging)
Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, then it was meant to be. But I was really annoyed by such a statement, That rather implies you were unfriendly, at least I'm often (too) unfriendly, Misusing then and than can cause confusion. If it is read as ... than it was meant to be. it takes on an entirely different meaning. :-) Good point, I read the wrong meaning too. Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 15:17 +0100, Cesare Tirabassi wrote: On Sunday 02 December 2007 01:34:14 you wrote: I'd like to hear what Paul, Mirco and Cesare have to say on this subject. Not being a Debian maintainer myself, I don't really feel entitled to say what you should do or not do about the changelog. Pragmatically, if the Ubuntu history is relevant to Debian (which I think could be the case in some cases) it would make sense to me if you retain it, otherwise why would you ? If it is just to recognise the work the previous maintainer has done, you can simply add a thanks entry to the changelog. But about the copyright, why would you want to make it anew ? If its not correct or complete (it shouldn't but of course people may make mistakes) just correct it or add what you need, as you do with the rest of the package. Cheers, Cesare Thank you for taking the time to respond Cesare, I asked for your input not for your association with a particular group, but because of your first-hand experience with the subject matter. Do you feel that it is appropriate to copy someone else's changelog entry verbatim without giving credit to the original author? Do you think that doing so is similar to plagiarism? Can you understand why the author who performed the work might feel violated? I understand that you may not have intended to transgress, disrespect or otherwise harm the upstream maintainer. However, you should be aware that your actions have consequences, and that the work performed by others should be respected and acknowledged. Again, thank you for taking part in this conversation. C.J. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: communication, friendlyness, DDs (Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging)
Hi, On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:08:54PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: On Sunday 02 December 2007 13:19, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, then it was meant to be. But I was really annoyed by such a statement, That rather implies you were unfriendly, at least I'm often (too) unfriendly, yes, I agree. when I'm really annoyed. Also, in communication it is totally irrelevant how you (the sending end) ment something. What matters in communication is how the receiving end perceives it and what the sending end ment, is almost totaly irrelevant. Well, but its not really possible for the sending end to know before, how the receiving end will perceive something. Besides that I'm feeling hard to express some things properly, because english is just not my native language. Its hard to try to respect feelings of receival ends then. Then let me tell you with my oh-my-god-DD!-status, that most DDs expect You get me wrong. I don't say, nor did I mean that DDs are gods. The problem is just the place were it happens (because of the audience) and the simple fact that the argued thing is easy to look up. friendlyness when interacting with fellow developers (being them DDs or not) :-) Sure, most of us can life with a flame here or a heated argument there, but at least I do expect to be treated friendly. Anytime, everywhere. Well, its not always that easy. What you feel as beeing unfriendly is felt unfriendly by the receiving end. In fact my first thinking when I read the mail about my unfriendlyness was: What?! I don't really understand why my mail has been unfriendly at all. Because I just complained about something that I felt totally wrong. I did not call Jose a moron or anything else insulting. And, DDs don't know everything and don't have to know everything as well. José I agree with this. But the problem is not to know everything, but the simple fact that informations can be looked up. If you argue with someone about elementar questions on how things should be done, its better to be informed. IMHO Debian Developers don't need to know everything, but they should know where to get the information from. In this case Jose knew the information source very well, but instead of looking into it and _then_ answering he indicated that he was to lazy or whatsoever to look into the policy and instead say that he does not know. I should have said that I feel this beeing bad, then it my have sounded different on the receiving end. But i cannot change things I already did. shared his experiences with you and the list and when he was in NM he was told by a DD (! :) that he should remove the old changelog and that he is not sure if there is a policy for this. And he made it through NM with this advice and all his NM communication was read by his AM, FD and DAM. Can't be that wrong. I don't see how this argumentation works. Sorry. He also indicated he might be wrong (as things might have changed) and that his knowledge is limited (doh! just like anybody elses on this planet) - Thats not true. In his first mail (the one that I first critizized) he just stated how it should be. Quiet confident. Sureley anyone who does not (yet) know better would see: Ah, the advise from a DD, additional their is no policy for it and oh not even a documented best practice in the DevRef, so I'll follow his advise. You see what I think is bad? In his second mail he did. But this mail would have never happend if I had not complained to him. what's wrong with that? It's rather good for two reasons: people know that they should not take his advice (in this matter) for granted and people can Thats right, but the acting in this case is IMHO wrong anyways. Because the information is so easy to lookup and proof. So why should someone who really does know that something like the Debian policy exists and where to find it (I assume that he does, because he is a DD) make statements about contents of the policy without looking it up? correct him and inform the list and point out the policy about keeping changelogs or not. I don't like this way of doing things. You can stretch this in any direction. Example: Not in a mentor-mentoree relationship, but in packaging: Why lookup sth. in the policy at all? Someone will make a bugreport and point out to the policy. Right? There are good arguments [..] but there are also good for removing Maybe. But the questioning of the topic starter surely wanted to ask for a rule of thumb. Jose gave one, which is _at least_ questionable. it. For example if you dont plan to merge back and forth in future (IME I We are talking about Ubuntu-to-Debian. So this is not of concern, right? And, yes, the packaging is copyrightable and has a licence. A licence which is a free software licence, which allows modification... You are right. I confused something. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: communication, friendlyness, DDs (Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging)
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 09:08:54PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, On Sunday 02 December 2007 13:19, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Thats bad. You should not answer to such questions if you don't know it for your self! Thats especially true because of your DD status that causes others to give your saying more confidence. Please, try to keep friendly, I don't think there's anything in this discussion that needs this kind of langage.. Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, then it was meant to be. But I was really annoyed by such a statement, That rather implies you were unfriendly, at least I'm often (too) unfriendly, Misusing then and than can cause confusion. If it is read as ... than it was meant to be. it takes on an entirely different meaning. :-) -- Chris. == -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
2007/12/2, Patrick Schoenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 1) Copyright / license issues: By removing important information from the previous packaging you might insult the packaging license. Redistribution in Debian might therefore be illegal. While I do believe that, as a general rule, it's much better to keep old changelog entries, I'm pretty sure it's not illegal at all toremove them (IANAL) as long as you keep the copyright statements. It might not be polite, but it definitely doesn't look illegal. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 02:04:43AM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: However, your arguments are not much consistent as well since you mix copyright related issues (take the work from others) and technical issues (track recent changes before initial debian upload). I don't mix arguments. These two arguments are totally on its own and both arguments are valid. So read my arguments this way: 1) Copyright / license issues: By removing important information from the previous packaging you might insult the packaging license. Redistribution in Debian might therefore be illegal. 2) Removing changelog entries for packaging that you did not do yourself might be problematic, because their might have been changes those rationales are documented in the changelog and might be important in the future. In fact this has often be the case. Besides beeing problematic to the packager, you take the possibility for the user to see what has been done to the package in the past. You make blackboxes out of Debian packages. Thats bad. You should not answer to such questions if you don't know it for your self! Thats especially true because of your DD status that causes others to give your saying more confidence. Please, try to keep friendly, I don't think there's anything in this discussion that needs this kind of langage.. Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, then it was meant to be. But I was really annoyed by such a statement, because it was made on a list where a lot of people come to actively _seek_ help and advise from people who _should_ really know it better then themselves. More then anywhere else beeing a DD is an important status here, because people expect a DD to be the best mentor they can imagine and as those to know policies, best practices or at least to be able to look for them during a discussion. So that's definitly a personal taste for that. You may miss important informations while erasing previous changelog, as well as you could spam the changelog with minor changes that would be uninteresting. Not neccesarily a matter of personal taste. Debian Packages are subject to change by not only one person. It _often_ happens that others need to track changes in your package. So you may think of personal taste, but I think about others that could do a NMU and don't know who did originally create the package. I personally endorse the erase *personal* policy since I believe any important fact on the package should, hence, not be in the changelog but on a file like README.Debian or else, and that I believe it's relevant to see on the debian changelog only debian related changes. You get the definition of important facts in _this_ context wrong. Not everything is well-placed in README.Debian. Lets see an example: Because of an issue with older kernels a binary in Debian had to be made setuid root. Now those older kernels aren't supported anymore and someone added a bug report about that setuid flag. What would you've done if you were the one adding the setuid root flag? Or if it originated in a package where you based your work on. Adding a note about that to README.Debian? I don't think thats proper. But besides from note-taking: Would you just change it or search for a reasoning why this setuid root flag got added? I think the latter is better, because by just removing something you could break things. Now adding all those mini-informations to README.Debian would bloat this file up, making it to a bad information source for users, cause they would ignore it then (too much informations they don't care for). Other don't do like this, so what's the point ? Perhaps that's the reason why Debian is much maintainer-centric, because every package maintainer can decide on his own for his own package. But just because it is like this, its not good in every case. With no consensous on doing some things similar or better equal there is no chance for the user to definitive know where to take informations from. Thats worse. So the point is to discuss on such topics and see whats the best solution for our users, be cause according to the Debian constitution thats all we do our work for. there's no official policy, and I think we don't need official policy for everything. You are right. We don't need an official policy for everything. And in fact a lot of people think that policy should only document well-established best practices. Thats fine, as we are all sane people who can discuss things and use a common way after reaching a consensous. And yes, you credit initial maintainers on the copyright of course. You should not only credit them, but see how they licensed their work (because Debian packaging is a license-worth work as well!) and respect their license. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Sunday 02 December 2007 01:34:14 you wrote: I'd like to hear what Paul, Mirco and Cesare have to say on this subject. Not being a Debian maintainer myself, I don't really feel entitled to say what you should do or not do about the changelog. Pragmatically, if the Ubuntu history is relevant to Debian (which I think could be the case in some cases) it would make sense to me if you retain it, otherwise why would you ? If it is just to recognise the work the previous maintainer has done, you can simply add a thanks entry to the changelog. But about the copyright, why would you want to make it anew ? If its not correct or complete (it shouldn't but of course people may make mistakes) just correct it or add what you need, as you do with the rest of the package. Cheers, Cesare -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
communication, friendlyness, DDs (Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging)
Hi, On Sunday 02 December 2007 13:19, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: Thats bad. You should not answer to such questions if you don't know it for your self! Thats especially true because of your DD status that causes others to give your saying more confidence. Please, try to keep friendly, I don't think there's anything in this discussion that needs this kind of langage.. Really, it may have sounded more rude to you, then it was meant to be. But I was really annoyed by such a statement, That rather implies you were unfriendly, at least I'm often (too) unfriendly, when I'm really annoyed. Also, in communication it is totally irrelevant how you (the sending end) ment something. What matters in communication is how the receiving end perceives it and what the sending end ment, is almost totaly irrelevant. because it was made on a list where a lot of people come to actively _seek_ help and advise from people who _should_ really know it better then themselves. More then anywhere else beeing a DD is an important status here, because people expect a DD to be the best mentor they can imagine and as those to know policies, best practices or at least to be able to look for them during a discussion. Then let me tell you with my oh-my-god-DD!-status, that most DDs expect friendlyness when interacting with fellow developers (being them DDs or not) :-) Sure, most of us can life with a flame here or a heated argument there, but at least I do expect to be treated friendly. Anytime, everywhere. And, DDs don't know everything and don't have to know everything as well. José shared his experiences with you and the list and when he was in NM he was told by a DD (! :) that he should remove the old changelog and that he is not sure if there is a policy for this. And he made it through NM with this advice and all his NM communication was read by his AM, FD and DAM. Can't be that wrong. He also indicated he might be wrong (as things might have changed) and that his knowledge is limited (doh! just like anybody elses on this planet) - what's wrong with that? It's rather good for two reasons: people know that they should not take his advice (in this matter) for granted and people can correct him and inform the list and point out the policy about keeping changelogs or not. And as this post has been made more than a week ago and since many knowledgable people read+write here, I think it's safe to conclude that no such policy exists. There are good arguments in favor of keeping old changelog entries (when merging from previous distributions) but there are also good for removing it. For example if you dont plan to merge back and forth in future (IME I cannot just take ubuntus patches and apply them, so the patching argument is not (always) true) and/or if those changelog entries are irrelevant for Debian/the current state of the package. (For example when the packaging was started with cdbs in $distribution, then moved to yada and now is maintained with debhelper. Why keep kilobytes of changelog describing fixing problems with cdbs packaging, if the package itself is only as big as the changelog ;-) And, yes, the packaging is copyrightable and has a licence. A licence which is a free software licence, which allows modification... regards, Holger pgpdVMPsyjREF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 16:30 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote: You need a new changelog for Debian starting from scratch and you could adapt the copyright (if the license allow it) or just make one new. Why? Thats IMHO a very bad way to do it. 1) changelog is to track was has been done in the package since its beginning. since it is orignating from an ubuntu package, why should its history be dropped? That has several disadvantages, including that its impossible to track any change that happened before the initial Debian release. Very bad. Also its not fair to the Ubuntu maintainers that did the initial and eventually biggest part of the work. You simply ignore the fact that they did something in the history of the package. Besides from beeing unfair it might be a license violation, depending on how the ubuntu packaging has been licensed. 2) it is also not wise to start a new copyright file. Besides from the fact that the Ubuntu maintainers might already have worked alot on it and it would be a big waste of time, to just drop it and start from new, you should honour their work beeing done and their packaging license. Regards, Patrick This topic was recently discussed on #debian-devel, but in a slightly different context. I'd like to hear what Paul, Mirco and Cesare have to say on this subject. Adding to To: line. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Dec 1, 2007 4:34 PM, C.J. Adams-Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 16:30 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote: On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote: You need a new changelog for Debian starting from scratch and you could adapt the copyright (if the license allow it) or just make one new. Why? Thats IMHO a very bad way to do it. 1) changelog is to track was has been done in the package since its beginning. since it is orignating from an ubuntu package, why should its history be dropped? That has several disadvantages, including that its impossible to track any change that happened before the initial Debian release. Very bad. Also its not fair to the Ubuntu maintainers that did the initial and eventually biggest part of the work. You simply ignore the fact that they did something in the history of the package. Besides from beeing unfair it might be a license violation, depending on how the ubuntu packaging has been licensed. 2) it is also not wise to start a new copyright file. Besides from the fact that the Ubuntu maintainers might already have worked alot on it and it would be a big waste of time, to just drop it and start from new, you should honour their work beeing done and their packaging license. Regards, Patrick This topic was recently discussed on #debian-devel, but in a slightly different context. I'd like to hear what Paul, Mirco and Cesare have to say on this subject. Adding to To: line. I agree with Patrick on this.. From experience, it is not that hard to merge packages from Debian to Ubuntu, and i'm sure it cant be much harder to go the opposite way. It is usually best to keep the change log, and add your own entry (as stated above). If you take a look at the Ubuntu change log, it includes all of the Debian entries from before (even those from recent merges), and it is simply a bad idea, patching wise, to not include the old change log (because an undocumented change can and probably will cause a problem in the future). I am still unsure of the reason the change log would need to be removed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
Le Monday 26 November 2007 22:10:46 Patrick Schoenfeld, vous avez écrit : other people at Debian told me that changelog should begin when the package begins in Debian, no matter if it had been used before somewhere There is no consensous about this. See the list archive for -mentors. Their have been several discussions on this topic and there are a lot of Debian Developers that don't agree with this. Also I am quiet sure there is the talking about *your own* work. The difference is that you can do whatever you like with *your* work, while you can't just take the work from others and do like they never did it. Fine, there is no consensus, that's true. However, your arguments are not much consistent as well since you mix copyright related issues (take the work from others) and technical issues (track recent changes before initial debian upload). else. I don't know if there is a policy for this, but I would like to Thats bad. You should not answer to such questions if you don't know it for your self! Thats especially true because of your DD status that causes others to give your saying more confidence. Please, try to keep friendly, I don't think there's anything in this discussion that needs this kind of langage.. think there are no preferences between some derivatives and some others. I have not seen changelogs containing knoppix, progeny, mepis or linex entries... Giving a preference to one derivative is probably not the best idea, but if someone takes the work from others to integrate it into Debian or the otherway round then he should not just drop the packages history. And btw. Ubuntu does not do that. And: I gave you some rationales why it is bad. Whats yours? Compared to *that* case there is another case were I find it reasonable to drop changelog history. Say for example a package that evolves in your own private history. Very well. So that's definitly a personal taste for that. You may miss important informations while erasing previous changelog, as well as you could spam the changelog with minor changes that would be uninteresting. I personally endorse the erase *personal* policy since I believe any important fact on the package should, hence, not be in the changelog but on a file like README.Debian or else, and that I believe it's relevant to see on the debian changelog only debian related changes. Other don't do like this, so what's the point ? Perhaps that's the reason why there's no official policy, and I think we don't need official policy for everything. And yes, you credit initial maintainers on the copyright of course. Romain
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote: You need a new changelog for Debian starting from scratch and you could adapt the copyright (if the license allow it) or just make one new. Why? Thats IMHO a very bad way to do it. 1) changelog is to track was has been done in the package since its beginning. since it is orignating from an ubuntu package, why should its history be dropped? That has several disadvantages, including that its impossible to track any change that happened before the initial Debian release. Very bad. Also its not fair to the Ubuntu maintainers that did the initial and eventually biggest part of the work. You simply ignore the fact that they did something in the history of the package. Besides from beeing unfair it might be a license violation, depending on how the ubuntu packaging has been licensed. 2) it is also not wise to start a new copyright file. Besides from the fact that the Ubuntu maintainers might already have worked alot on it and it would be a big waste of time, to just drop it and start from new, you should honour their work beeing done and their packaging license. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
El lun, 26-11-2007 a las 16:30 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld escribió: On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote: You need a new changelog for Debian starting from scratch and you could adapt the copyright (if the license allow it) or just make one new. Why? Thats IMHO a very bad way to do it. 1) changelog is to track was has been done in the package since its beginning. since it is orignating from an ubuntu package, why should its history be dropped? That has several disadvantages, including that its impossible to track any change that happened before the initial Debian release. Very bad. Also its not fair to the Ubuntu maintainers that did the initial and eventually biggest part of the work. You simply ignore the fact that they did something in the history of the package. Besides from beeing unfair it might be a license violation, depending on how the ubuntu packaging has been licensed. Not too long ago, about 4 years, when Ubuntu didn't exist, I tried to upload my first package to Debian. It was a package we had been using in LinEx (our Extremadura Debian based distribution). My sponsor and some other people at Debian told me that changelog should begin when the package begins in Debian, no matter if it had been used before somewhere else. I don't know if there is a policy for this, but I would like to think there are no preferences between some derivatives and some others. I have not seen changelogs containing knoppix, progeny, mepis or linex entries... 2) it is also not wise to start a new copyright file. Besides from the fact that the Ubuntu maintainers might already have worked alot on it and it would be a big waste of time, to just drop it and start from new, you should honour their work beeing done and their packaging license. Sure, and previous work should be mentioned, no matter who did it: Ubuntu or my grand mother. Regarrds. signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
Hi, [no need to CC me. I never expressed the wish that I want that] On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 09:34:27PM +0100, José L. Redrejo Rodríguez wrote: Not too long ago, about 4 years, when Ubuntu didn't exist, I tried to upload my first package to Debian. It was a package we had been using in LinEx (our Extremadura Debian based distribution). My sponsor and some so your handling of packages derives from a time were neither Ubuntu, nor the Utnubu project existed and your only rationale for this is, that your sponsors (when you have not been a DD like now) said that? Uh. other people at Debian told me that changelog should begin when the package begins in Debian, no matter if it had been used before somewhere There is no consensous about this. See the list archive for -mentors. Their have been several discussions on this topic and there are a lot of Debian Developers that don't agree with this. Also I am quiet sure there is the talking about *your own* work. The difference is that you can do whatever you like with *your* work, while you can't just take the work from others and do like they never did it. else. I don't know if there is a policy for this, but I would like to Thats bad. You should not answer to such questions if you don't know it for your self! Thats especially true because of your DD status that causes others to give your saying more confidence. think there are no preferences between some derivatives and some others. I have not seen changelogs containing knoppix, progeny, mepis or linex entries... Giving a preference to one derivative is probably not the best idea, but if someone takes the work from others to integrate it into Debian or the otherway round then he should not just drop the packages history. And btw. Ubuntu does not do that. And: I gave you some rationales why it is bad. Whats yours? Compared to *that* case there is another case were I find it reasonable to drop changelog history. Say for example a package that evolves in your own private history. Sure, and previous work should be mentioned, no matter who did it: Ubuntu or my grand mother. Right. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
Giovanni Mascellani scrisse: Thank you, but I'm still not confident about how to deal with debian/copyright and debian/changelog. Should I delete them and rewrite like as I were making a new package, or should I just modify them (adding a new entry in changelog and a new paragraph in copyright describing that the package was ported to Debian by me)? I think that having already a skeleton for your work is good, you can start from there and do a complete check plus a mention of your work. Moreover that could be a good time to provide debian/copyright in a machine interpretable format[1]. Giovanni. Ciao, Luca [1] http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno : :' : The Universal O.S.| luca.br(AT)uno.it `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 3BFB9FB3 `- http://www.debian.org | Proud Debian GNU/Linux User pgpuCl4NoA6Q8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
All'incirca Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:23:54 -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] sembrerebbe aver scritto: You just need to make the package accomplish the Debian policy, that's all you need to do. Thank you, but I'm still not confident about how to deal with debian/copyright and debian/changelog. Should I delete them and rewrite like as I were making a new package, or should I just modify them (adding a new entry in changelog and a new paragraph in copyright describing that the package was ported to Debian by me)? Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pisa, Italy Web: http://giomasce.altervista.org SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 0x5F1FBF70 (FP: 1EB6 3D43 E201 4DDF 67BD 003F FCB0 BB5C 5F1F BF70) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
Giovanni Mascellani wrote: Hi all! I'm making a Debian package which already exists in Ubuntu. I'd like to take advantage of the efforts already done by the Ubuntu maintainers and modify the Ubuntu package instead of create a completely new one. Is there somewhat like a policy, best practises or similar about doing this? I searched in Debian Wiki (particularly the Utnubu pages) and with Google, but couldn't find anything. Can someone help me? Thank you and happy Debian! Giovanni. Hi Giovanni, You just need to make the package accomplish the Debian policy, that's all you need to do. Regards, Jose Luis. -- ghostbar on debian linux 'sid' 2.6.22 x86_64-SMP - #382503 Weblog: http://ghostbar.ath.cx/ - http://linuxtachira.org http://debian.org.ve - irc.debian.org #debian-ve #debian-devel-es San Cristóbal, Venezuela. http://chaslug.org.ve GPG: 0xCACAB118 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Nov 22, 2007 2:57 PM, Giovanni Mascellani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there somewhat like a policy, best practises or similar about doing this? Not that I know of, but I've been asked this question before, so this is my answer: If the packaging licence allows it, you can take the package done by Ubuntu as a basis, and you should credit the Ubuntu packagers in your changelog and copyright files. But after that you'll need to: 1) Check that it complies with Debian Policy. I.e. check that it has a manpage, a menu file, etc. 2) If it has patches, check if they are relevant to Debian. 3) Check that it builds correctly in a pbuilder (base install is not the same in Ubuntu and Debian) 4) Do a general quality check to make sure that the package is of Debian's quality and not Ubuntu's. -- Besos, Marga -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
Giovanni Mascellani wrote: All'incirca Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:23:54 -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] sembrerebbe aver scritto: You just need to make the package accomplish the Debian policy, that's all you need to do. Thank you, but I'm still not confident about how to deal with debian/copyright and debian/changelog. Should I delete them and rewrite like as I were making a new package, or should I just modify them (adding a new entry in changelog and a new paragraph in copyright describing that the package was ported to Debian by me)? You need a new changelog for Debian starting from scratch and you could adapt the copyright (if the license allow it) or just make one new. Regards, Jose Luis. -- ghostbar on debian linux 'sid' 2.6.22 x86_64-SMP - #382503 Weblog: http://ghostbar.ath.cx/ - http://linuxtachira.org http://debian.org.ve - irc.debian.org #debian-ve #debian-devel-es San Cristóbal, Venezuela. http://chaslug.org.ve GPG: 0xCACAB118 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 18:23 -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote: Giovanni Mascellani wrote: All'incirca Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:23:54 -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras [EMAIL PROTECTED] sembrerebbe aver scritto: You just need to make the package accomplish the Debian policy, that's all you need to do. Thank you, but I'm still not confident about how to deal with debian/copyright and debian/changelog. Should I delete them and rewrite like as I were making a new package, or should I just modify them (adding a new entry in changelog and a new paragraph in copyright describing that the package was ported to Debian by me)? You need a new changelog for Debian starting from scratch and you could adapt the copyright (if the license allow it) or just make one new. I'm not so sure. Some people would request a new changelog, but it's not a hard and fast rule as far as I know. If the packaging work is going to follow Ubuntu closely then a shared changelog could be useful. As for debian/copyright make any changes that you need, but if you are using the Ubuntu packaging then do not remove their copyright notice and licensing. Also if it has the note at the top saying who added the packaging and when it would be polite to leave that present and just add a note saying who modified it for Debian if you like. Obviously if the packaging is completely new then you can ignore all this, but I don't think we would have this thread if that was the case. Thanks, James -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ubuntu-to-Debian packaging
On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 22:47 +, James Westby wrote: On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 18:23 -0400, Jose Luis Rivas Contreras wrote: You need a new changelog for Debian starting from scratch and you could adapt the copyright (if the license allow it) or just make one new. I'm not so sure. Likewise, I don't see why you would want to start over. You'd lose potentially useful changelog information. For example, if you're wondering why something was done a certain way in the package, it might be listed in the changelog. Plus, packages that started in Ubuntu obviously have some interest there. As they're downstream of Debian, changes will be copied in at least one direction, but quite probably both. Retaining history can be very useful in these efforts. Finally, I think it's generally distaseful to remove the record of someone else's work for no good reason. Richard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
