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
[OT] Re: Deu no Jornal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/18/2006 06:41 PM, Pesquisa Digital wrote: Deu em O Debate. Janeiro de 2003. www.pesquisadigital.com http://www.pesquisadigital.com Óleo de fritura do McDonald's vira combustível O combustível está sendo obtido a partir do óleo usado nas frituras da rede de lanchonetes. [...] Ok, it is a news (probably spam) about trucks that are going to do an experimental test with Mc'Donalds vegetal oil used to fry food, the used oil will serve as fuel. :-) Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDz7EoCjAO0JDlykYRApsEAJ9g6jCCudZSJxAv1qSM9MOluc8cbwCfd8S0 Ddnqol3/Fh2M3oX5pPGX5O4= =C7CS -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)
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)
(dropping debian-devel, this is really not a technical issue) Matt Zimmerman wrote on 17/01/2006 20:44: 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. Fine, quoting from there: Ubuntu is a distribution based on Debian. Exactly. 1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian unchanged (example: tetex-base). False. They are changed through recompilation. So let's assume you are talking about the source part only. Then the problem is that they aren't automatically updated as soon as their Debian counterpart is updated. So a Debian maintainer has no way to fix the package in Ubuntu. In my opinion, the maintainer field should be set to some Ubuntu individual or team even in these cases. But I would be fine with the maintainer field unchanged if the majority of Debian Devs would agree to taht. 2. Some source packages in Ubuntu are modified relative to Debian. These are assigned a version number of the form Debian version numberubuntuubuntu revision number. Of those which are modified, in most cases the modifications are trivial, such as a library transition, Python transition or other dependency change (example: python-adns, http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/python-adns/python-adns_1.0.0-6ubuntu3.patch). In some cases, the packages are modified more extensively (example: several d-i components, such as partman http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/partman-auto/partman-auto_41ubuntu1.patch). At the very least, for more extensively modified packages, you should definitely set the maintainer field to some ubuntu entity. But since you did modifications after the Debian maintainer did his, he had no way of approving your changes, so you should _really_ set the maintainer field to something inside ubuntu for all these packages you changed. Don't forget to suggest your changes to the Debian maintainer for future inclusion. Unless they are completely Ubuntu specific. But even then, suggesting them might help the Debian maintainer in the future. 3. A small number of packages are created specifically for Ubuntu. These are assigned standard version numbers. Of those, some have already been adopted by Debian (example: pmount), some are expected to be adopted by Debian at some point in the future (example: xorg), and some are not expected to be used in a Debian context (example: ubuntu-artwork). Well, I don't see how these fit into the discussion. As they are created by Ubuntu and already carry an ubuntu specific entity in their Maintainer field, these aren't effected by this discussion, I think. 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. That's why I would be OK with the maintainer field kept as is if you really are merely recompiling the package. However: In that case you should have some mechanism in place to monitor updates to those packages in Debian and to merge those updates into Ubuntu if needed. Now, finally to answer your questions directly: Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be: 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? I would prefer to see it set to the name and address of the third party, but I would accept it if a majority says this is not needed. 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? Definitely: Yes, they should, in either case. Simply for the reason that even seemingly trivial changes can introduce new bugs. Apart from the fact that a change which seems trivial to one person doesn't need to seem trivial to another. I am interested in responses to these two questions from the Debian community. cu, sven signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer? This should probably happen in a way that all (or most) Debian-derived distro's agree on then. And one more problem: Ubuntu doesn't have the same maintainer concept as Debian has... -- JanC
Re: Debian derivatives and the Maintainer: field (again)
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:36:18AM +0100, Sven Mueller wrote: (dropping debian-devel, this is really not a technical issue) Matt Zimmerman wrote on 17/01/2006 20:44: 1. Most of the source packages in Ubuntu are inherited from Debian unchanged (example: tetex-base). False. They are changed through recompilation. So let's assume you are talking about the source part only. Well, yes, that's why I wrote source packages. Then the problem is that they aren't automatically updated as soon as their Debian counterpart is updated. So a Debian maintainer has no way to fix the package in Ubuntu. During roughly the first half of each release cycle, they are. Given the above, the relevant questions would seem to be: 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? I would prefer to see it set to the name and address of the third party, but I would accept it if a majority says this is not needed. 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? Definitely: Yes, they should, in either case. Simply for the reason that even seemingly trivial changes can introduce new bugs. Apart from the fact that a change which seems trivial to one person doesn't need to seem trivial to another. Thanks for your opinions. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
