Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Scripsit Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which other derivative has made available all of the changes they've made, more-or-less as they make them? Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making available the changes one makes is a legal requirement (assuming that one wants to distribute binaries). -- Henning MakholmAnd why should I talk slaves' and fools' talk? I don't want him to live for ever, and I know that he's not going to live for ever whether I want him to or not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which other derivative has made available all of the changes they've made, more-or-less as they make them? Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making available the changes one makes is a legal requirement (assuming that one wants to distribute binaries). A number of derivatives don't make binaries publically available, or they don't have reasonably obvious places to go to get the binaries and/or source. I certainly haven't seen a derivative put up a diff repository like Ubuntu has. I know it's not a giant leap in terms of usability or the effort required to implement it, but it's a baby step further than any other derivative has gone (AFAIK). - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Scripsit Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:01:32PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: Which other derivative doesn't? At least for GPL code, making available the changes one makes is a legal requirement (assuming that one wants to distribute binaries). A number of derivatives don't make binaries publically available, or they don't have reasonably obvious places to go to get the binaries and/or source. I grant that this is a possibility. I guess I just don't see a derivative that doesn't even make binaries publically available, as something significant enough for us to even care about. I certainly haven't seen a derivative put up a diff repository like Ubuntu has. I know it's not a giant leap in terms of usability or the effort required to implement it, I don't think that running a diff job makes any difference at all. Diffing is a machine's job, and cpu cycles are cheap. If somebody wants to claim that they make significant contributions beyond the mere publication of their source code, those contributions should be something of the man-hour variety rather than the cpu seconds one. -- Henning Makholm And here we could talk about the Plato's Cave thing for a while---the Veg-O-Matic of metaphors---it slices! it dices! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we ever had. Provide evidence, please. X.org, d-i, Gnome. [Still, communication of changes for smaller packages REALLY sucks] Marc -- Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt 100: Hacker Zwanghafte Programmierer, die nur für das Programm leben und deshalb auf ihre Körperpflege verzichten. (Joseph Weizenbaum) pgp0g7UNyvgWN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Paul Johnson wrote: FWIW, what you say is false and *many* developers are interested in cooperation, not in war. And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we ever had. Provide evidence, please. Please don't reply to private emails on public list... I mailed it directly to you because you had enough good public response. I just wanted to add a kind of me too by private mail. And you reply to the private me too instead of any other mail... Cheers, PS: And for the evidence, I'm working on it. -devel will be informed when it's ready. -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 00:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Le lundi 23 janvier 2006, Paul Johnson a écrit : On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote: Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*. The source is the same, so the field should NOT be changed for *source packages*. Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence? FWIW, what you say is false and *many* developers are interested in cooperation, not in war. And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we ever had. Provide evidence, please. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber pgp80xjGqtSN8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:49:37AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tuesday 24 January 2006 00:08, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Le lundi 23 janvier 2006, Paul Johnson a écrit : On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote: Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*. The source is the same, so the field should NOT be changed for *source packages*. Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence? FWIW, what you say is false and *many* developers are interested in cooperation, not in war. And Ubuntu is doing far more for us than most other derivatives that we ever had. Provide evidence, please. Which other derivative has made available all of the changes they've made, more-or-less as they make them? - Matt
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
JW == Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] JW Since binary-level compatibility is not a goal of Ubuntu JW (nor IMO should it be; down that path lies madness), they JW modify every package in a very important sense. Even if binary compatibility were a goal, that doesn't mean that the Maintainer field of rebuilt packages shouldn't be updated to reflect the actual builder of the package. We use CentOS at work. CentOS is a binary-compatible rebuild of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Every single package in CentOS is rebuilt by the CentOS team. Every package has its Vendor and Packager field modified. Ubuntu should be doing the same thing. [For the poll aspect of this discussion, I agree with everything that Thomas Bushnell has said on this topic.] Claire -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his spare time; only by what he does as his work. W.R. Lethaby +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ pgpFBPicmVh7L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote: Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*. The source is the same, so the field should NOT be changed for *source packages*. Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence? -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber pgpkGxOARhn0K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote: Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*. The source is the same, so the field should NOT be changed for *source packages*. Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence? I think that way lies madness, for so many reasons. It's not exactly encouraging of the principles of Free Software, nor is it particularly practical. Would we hold a GR to say Ubuntu is the Antichrist? Some sort of technical thing to micq our packages against Ubuntu? I don't really see the value in it, either -- what's it going to get us? I seriously doubt that, even if we *wanted* a PR war, that we could win it. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 05:33:33PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sunday 22 January 2006 03:16, David Weinehall wrote: Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*. The source is the same, so the field should NOT be changed for *source packages*. Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or society, what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence? That we're here to build a superior operating system, not to engage in counterproductive wanking out of jealousy over others success? Oh, wait, you're not a DD, so I guess this is a different we you're talking about having officially discourage Ubuntu's existence. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Paul Johnson writes: Given Ubuntu hopelessly complicates everything, pretends there is cooperation where there is none, and merely duplicates the effort of the debian-desktop project, and contributes nothing to the community or society... Do you have evidence to support this, or is it just libel? ...what's stopping us from officially discouraging Ubuntu's existence? The fact that most of us are interested in cooperation or at least peaceful coexistence. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 01:53 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the contents of the package! But what about when packages in universe are simply merged in straight from Debian? It might be a strange semantic question: Is that the same package, or a different one? In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package when it gets resynched. Now, before I confuse myself with word games and contemplate whether that implies control or not, I'm going to offer up the conjecture that bug reports on an Ubuntu universe package are potentially more relevant to a Debian maintainer than bug reports on a Debian stable package, since they're closer to the current unstable. Thoughts? Scott Ritchie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 02:26:57AM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote: [snip] In the case of such a package, the same fixes by the Debian maintainer to the Debian package do end up in the contents of the Ubuntu package when it gets resynched. Now, before I confuse myself with word games and contemplate whether that implies control or not, I'm going to offer up the conjecture that bug reports on an Ubuntu universe package are potentially more relevant to a Debian maintainer than bug reports on a Debian stable package, since they're closer to the current unstable. Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though they share the same source. Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good thing; thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*. The source is the same, so the field should NOT be changed for *source packages*. If the bug indeed exists in both Ubuntu and Debian, then the bug is in the source and needs fixing in Debian too, but if the bug is caused by the Ubuntu build environment, then the bug is purely in the package, and any bugreport would just waste the Debian developer's time, *AND* risk Ubuntu losing vital information about a bug in their build environment. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
[David Weinehall] Since all Ubuntu packages are recompiled against a different set of libraries, the bug might not even affect the Debian package, even though they share the same source. The same can be said about Debian architectures, when the autobuilder build the packages at different times and with different sequences, leaving the same source package build with different libraries on different archs in Debian. I guess on a good day we might see Ubuntu as another arch for the packages were the same source is used... Hence having Ubuntu developers triage the bugs to rule out such issues before they are forwarded to Debian's BTS is always a good thing; Yes, this is generally a good idea. :) thus the maintainer field should be changed for *binary packages*. This is probably a good idea, yes. Personally I do not mind being the maintainer of binary packages build from unmodified sources in Ubuntu. I'm do not have any problem with being listed as maintainer for modified packages either, but would prefer people with ubuntu to do triage before a bug is reported to BTS, to make sure the problem isn't related to the ubuntu environment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the contents of the package! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized basis, across the entire set of packages). However, this is not the same thing as saying the maintainer of this package is the MOTU team, especially not in the same sense as [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the maintainer of libapache2-mod-auth-mysql. Yes, it certainly is. The maintainer is the person responsible for bug triage and for making suitable changes as necessary. I cannot change Ubuntu; I am therefore not the maintainer of any package in Ubuntu. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the contents of the package! Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers. Does this mean that those 'most' packages are maintained by the debian maintainers, who do uploads to ubuntu also ? How many is most in this case ? Do they also know about it ? I mean i was never proposed to make ubuntu maintenance of my packages for example, so i wonder how this works. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the contents of the package! Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers. Um, no, I don't recally saying in another email that ubuntu packages are maintained by the Debian maintainers. In fact, I've said the opposite. Are you confusing me with Matt? Does this mean that those 'most' packages are maintained by the debian maintainers, who do uploads to ubuntu also ? How many is most in this case ? Do they also know about it ? I mean i was never proposed to make ubuntu maintenance of my packages for example, so i wonder how this works. Um, I think you and I are in nearly complete agreement. Do you have me confused with someone else? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 03:44:12AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:53:26AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. They are *not* maintained by the Debian maintainer, for the simple reason that the Debian maintainer does not have control over the contents of the package! Ok, now can you explain this inconsitency, you say in another mail that most ubuntu packages are maintained by the debian maintainers. Um, no, I don't recally saying in another email that ubuntu packages are maintained by the Debian maintainers. In fact, I've said the opposite. Are you confusing me with Matt? Oh, yes, sorry. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote: 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... I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions like why is the package set up this way?, what are your plans for it?, etc., while the MOTU team are not. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their packages. I believe that altough in most case there is not much difference there may be subtle differences between the ubuntu environment and the debian one, which makes the handlign of bug reports non-evident. Also a pure debian maintainer will have some trouble checking and testing any possible fix, not having a ubuntu install done. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their packages. Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a conversation. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their packages. I've already addressed all of your points repeatedly in this thread. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a conversation. I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've merely participated in the discussion and respected Mail-Followup-To. I won't even start to discuss which end of the friendly stick I've been on so far. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. But if a problem in a package in Ubuntu universe does appear, whose responsibility[1][2] is it to fix it? Whatever the answer to that question, also answers the question what should go in the Maintainer: field?. By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions like why is the package set up this way?, what are your plans for it?, etc., while the MOTU team are not. What the? By that logic, the upstream author should be in the Maint: field, since they're in the *best* position to answer those questions for the majority content of the package. At any rate, in most cases the answer, from the Debian maintainer, to the first question would either be Dunno, can't remember or the previous maintainer was a known crack addict, while the answer to the second would be shrug make sure it doesn't break, I suppose -- none of whick are particularly more interesting answers than what you'd get from the MOTUs. - Matt [1] Subject to the usual we're all volunteers, yada yada proviso. [2] Remember also that with responsibility should come authority, so the Debian maintainer is usually an immediate non-candidate in Ubuntu.
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, Maintainer means An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the on-going well being of a package. As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs have responsibility for all of the packages in Universe. In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and propagated unmodified into Ubuntu. It is only when there is a specific motive to change the package in Ubuntu that anyone on that team will touch it. But if a problem in a package in Ubuntu universe does appear, whose responsibility[1][2] is it to fix it? Whatever the answer to that question, also answers the question what should go in the Maintainer: field?. And unsurprisingly, it, too, doesn't have a straightforward answer. If a user reports such a bug to Ubuntu, it is approximately the domain of the MOTU team, in that they triage those bugs (on a time-available prioritized basis, across the entire set of packages). However, this is not the same thing as saying the maintainer of this package is the MOTU team, especially not in the same sense as [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the maintainer of libapache2-mod-auth-mysql. By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions like why is the package set up this way?, what are your plans for it?, etc., while the MOTU team are not. What the? By that logic, the upstream author should be in the Maint: field, since they're in the *best* position to answer those questions for the majority content of the package. At any rate, in most cases the answer, from the Debian maintainer, to the first question would either be Dunno, can't remember or the previous maintainer was a known crack addict, while the answer to the second would be shrug make sure it doesn't break, I suppose -- none of whick are particularly more interesting answers than what you'd get from the MOTUs. If I were to accept your declaration that the Debian maintainer is equally ill-equipped to discuss the package, then it follows that they are an equally valid value for the Maintainer field. There really isn't any point in arguing our individual views, though. What I'm interested in is what will satisfy a majority of Debian developers, and the proposed poll seems like the closest we'll get to that. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions like why is the package set up this way?, what are your plans for it?, etc., while the MOTU team are not. What the? By that logic, the upstream author should be in the Maint: field, since they're in the *best* position to answer those questions for the majority content of the package. At any rate, in most cases the answer, from the Debian maintainer, to the first question would either be Dunno, can't remember or the previous maintainer was a known crack addict, while the answer to the second would be shrug make sure it doesn't break, I suppose -- none of whick are particularly more interesting answers than what you'd get from the MOTUs. If I were to accept your declaration that the Debian maintainer is equally ill-equipped to discuss the package, then it follows that they are an equally valid value for the Maintainer field. It only follows if your definition of maintainer is can answer all development questions. If you're going to go that way, you may as well put the man in the moon as the maintainer of your packages, as he's got as much chance, in the general case, of answering those questions. Thus, I'd say that your definition of Maintainer is bollocks. There really isn't any point in arguing our individual views, though. What I'm interested in is what will satisfy a majority of Debian developers, and the proposed poll seems like the closest we'll get to that. All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the outcome. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the outcome. It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the outcome. It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread. It will just be this thread all over again. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a conversation. I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've merely participated in the discussion and respected Mail-Followup-To. Oh well, i wonder who added it then. I guess it is a closed list, but they could at least disable the automatic reply or something. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and The thing is not exactly like that though, what really happens is that you simply rebuild those packages and upload them to universe, without even asking the debian maintainers, which is exactly the reason for this long thread, since some object to getting bug reports for the ubuntu builds of their packages. I've already addressed all of your points repeatedly in this thread. Huh, what points ? First, sorry but i got lost in the thread somewhere at about a quarter of its current size, so i may have missed some. That said, you claim that Most of the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and that is simply a mis-representation, if not an outhright lie. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote: You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers regarding Ubuntu practices. Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. What BSG writes is the feeling I'm getting from you as well. This is not Planet Ubuntu, Debian doesn't exist purely to source Ubuntu. I'm personally tired of the attitude from Ubuntu users and developers alike that this is Planet Ubuntu. My name is Thomas, not BSG. Sorry for the confusion. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy. And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor with Ubuntu, then you can be sure that you won't get what you want. I would be happy with either of two alternatives: * Ubuntu changes its practices to actually start cooperating with Debian. * Ubuntu stops claiming it is cooperating with Debian. What Matt wants to do, as judged by his actual behavior, is to claim he is cooperating with Debian, and then disregard what Debian has actually said, repeatedly, would constitution cooperation. The most important things are: * Proper use of the BTS to file bug reports and patches back. * Proper use of the Maintainer field to indicate the individual responsible for the package and able to make changes. And now, a third has entered my radar screen because it never occurred to me that Ubuntu was so seriously screwing this one up: * Proper changing of package version numbers when Ubuntu rebuilds packages. Matt has argued that some people disagree with the exact parameters of the second of these three. And, on the basis of that disagreement, he does nothing about it at all, and ignores the first and third. If he wanted to demonstrate good faith, he would have required Debian-relevant Ubuntu changes to be reported to the BTS long ago. There has never been disagreement within Debian about this, and if he actually meant I want to do the right thing, but you all can't agree, then he would do the right thing *now* for the cases where there is straightforward agreement. The fact that he has not done so convinces me that he is not really interested in cooperating with Debian. But he *is* interested in appearing to cooperate with Debian. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion. Am Montag, den 16.01.2006, 18:36 -0500 schrieb Joey Hess: Please consider ALL code written/maintained by me that is present in Ubuntu and is not bit-identical to code/binaries in Debian to be not suitable for release with my name on it. What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the maintainer field and some who don't want that. You are now making a request to not release binary packages with your name on it. I assume this does not include source packages as well, just binary packages. This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) in apt-get, apt-cache and co to disable/mangling the Maintainer field of packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less intrusive approach? I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for all. -- Reinhard Tartler [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote: What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions on this matter. packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less intrusive approach? IMHO a if, and only if we modify it, we upload it with our name in changelog and uploaders field rule would be quite a good compromise. But that's my personal opinion, of course. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: CC:ing -project because this is a project wide call for discussion. (-project is for discussion about the project, not for project wide stuff; dunno if this fits that) What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory. There are clearly some Maintainers in Debian, who want their name in the maintainer field and some who don't want that. FWIW, I haven't seen the ones who do want their name in the maintainer field. This is a call for discussion: What does debian actually want? Do we really need to include a white or black list (and what exactly?) Personally, I'd suggest: * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the same * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as to the source you pulled from * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream. That seems like it makes things fairly simple for you guys (no changes in the normal case, tweaking debian/control and debian/copyright when changes are needed), provides appropriate credit to debian maintainers, and provides a fairly simple and effective way of getting changes incorporated back in. I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for all. It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with once and for all IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
* Reinhard Tartler [Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:07:40 +0100]: What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html Yah, zero luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00077.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00080.html -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org And don't get me wrong - I don't mind getting proven wrong. I change my opinions the way some people change underwear. And I think that's ok. -- Linus Torvalds -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 09:58 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote: What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions on this matter. packages just imported from Debian? Or can we live with an less intrusive approach? IMHO a if, and only if we modify it, we upload it with our name in changelog and uploaders field rule would be quite a good compromise. But that's my personal opinion, of course. Modify is a tricky word. Most of my packages go into Ubuntu unmodified, in that the diff.gz is the same. However, they use an entirely different infrastructure -- new minor GTK and Python versions. Since binary-level compatibility is not a goal of Ubuntu (nor IMO should it be; down that path lies madness), they modify every package in a very important sense. -- Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:45:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:07:40AM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote: There have been no responses which would indicate what we should do. Actually, there've been lots, some of them are just contradictory. There was a lot of discussion, much of which took place without a clear understanding of the technical issues involved. I attempted to summarize those and present the questions in a clear and unequivocally answerable fashion, and I did not in fact receive a single answer. Now, eight months later, some of the same discussions are being rehashed without considering the issues and questions that I put forth in that summary message. Personally, I'd suggest: * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the same Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please individuals with conflicting opinions. * for debs in main that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the appropriate point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file as to the source you pulled from * for debs in universe that are modified, set the maintainer: field to the MOTU list or similar point of contact, and add a note to the copyright file These two are equivalent, so we don't need to treat main and universe separately. * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner I don't see how this would help. If we were to institute a policy (or more likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on the process. What did you have in mind here? * for changes that are likely to be useful in Debian or generally, submit the change upstream, by filing a bug with a minimal patch included to bugs.debian.org, or by the appropriate mechanism further upstream. Let's not conflate these entirely separate issues. I'd prefer a solution which can be implemented in a reasonable time frame, and which ends this annoyingly heated discussion once and for all. It's rare that heated discussions are ever done with once and for all IME. Though the emacs/vi wars are cooler now than they were a decade ago. There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be reached informally, that's what I think we will need. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [snip] There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be reached informally, that's what I think we will need. Why would Debian need to take an official position on behalf of its members? Yes, I can see that it would be in Ubuntu's best interest for Debian to do so, but since it's obvious from this discussion that different Debian developers have different opinions on this issue, it's clearly not in Debian's best interest. Regards: David Weinehall -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Rime on my window (\ // ~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:58:28AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote: What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html That's probably because different maintainers will have different opinions on this matter. I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on a Debian mailing list. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the same Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from discussion among developers, or an official decision from a position of authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please individuals with conflicting opinions. Maybe I missed something, but has someone actually said they'd be unhappy if the Maintainer: field was an appropriate Ubuntu person? Some might be alright with leaving Maintainer alone if the package hasn't been changed, some might be alright with leaving it the same even if the package has been changed and some might always want it changed, I don't expect you'll get a concensus on that. I'd be suprised if someone was actually unhappy with the Maintainer field changing though. Of course, don't submit a patch back to Debian which includes changing the Maintainer field. * for maintainers who want to keep their name in the maintainer field, even when modified by Ubuntu, invite them to join Ubuntu in the usual manner I don't see how this would help. If we were to institute a policy (or more likely, an automated process) to change the maintainer field, inviting the maintainer to become an Ubuntu developer wouldn't have any obvious effect on the process. What did you have in mind here? It's similar to my comment above- set the maintainer to an appropriate Ubuntu person, which would naturally be the Ubuntu package maintainer, who might also be the Debian package maintainer. Really, though, this isn't a Debian concern or problem- if the Ubuntu developers are complaining about an automated Maintainer-changing script then that's an issue Ubuntu needs to deal with and figure a way around, or just ignore. It's certainly not an excuse to leave the Maintainer field alone. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html 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). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:01:42PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [snip] There will always be differing personal preferences, but in spite of these, there are times when an organization needs to take an official position on behalf of its members, even if they don't all agree, so that other organizations can respond to it with confidence. If a consensus can't be reached informally, that's what I think we will need. Why would Debian need to take an official position on behalf of its members? Yes, I can see that it would be in Ubuntu's best interest for Debian to do so, but since it's obvious from this discussion that different Debian developers have different opinions on this issue, it's clearly not in Debian's best interest. In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on this subject. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Hi Matt, Matt Zimmerman wrote: I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on a Debian mailing list. I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority. You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you (well, your position) in. This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for them rename the field to Debian-Maintainer or something. I don't think that people will reach a consensus here and that probably it's more time-efficient to implement two simple solutions for people to choose than to discuss that to death. If the developers split 99:1 on it, you might then argue with data for dropping the unpopular choice. Speaking of it, one example where people can opt in to a scheme worth considering is the Low Threshold NMU page[1]. I don't think that a policy change for relaxation of the time requirements for NMUs would be concensus, but it's cool to be able to opt into some more progressive procedure, maybe it would be nice if it weren't so few maintainers. Kind regards T. 1. http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:18:35PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: Hi Matt, Matt Zimmerman wrote: I cannot recall any time when differing opinions have resulted in silence on a Debian mailing list. I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority. You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you (well, your position) in. This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for them rename the field to Debian-Maintainer or something. Sounds like an excellent opportunity to hold a poll about: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/12/msg00216.html Please send proposed ballot(-items) to me personally, and I'll set it up tomorrow or so. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the silence is due to the fact that people give it low priority. You have all my sympathy for the uncomfortable position that puts you (well, your position) in. It's probably a reflection of how many emails to debian lists are deleted unread for discussing Ubuntu. Maybe it's because much Ubuntu stuff gets posted to inappropriate mailing lists (for example, using -devel for non-technical questions like http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html or posting ubuntu PR to -devel-announce). This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for them rename the field to Debian-Maintainer or something. That seems backwards. If they're not maintaining the ubuntu package, please don't fib and say that they are. Opt-in, not opt-out. -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on this subject. Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is not absolute unanimity on the alternative. That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you attribute malicious intent. What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do. In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and accusatory. There's simply no cause for it. The most productive thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions therein. Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to collect information? Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to piss you off? Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too. Nonsense. What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual. Please read the previous threads on this subject. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
MJ Ray wrote: This isn't too original, but how about just having a Debian wiki page where people who don't want their name as Maintainer can sign up and for them rename the field to Debian-Maintainer or something. That seems backwards. If they're not maintaining the ubuntu package, please don't fib and say that they are. Opt-in, not opt-out. My guess is that there are some 30 people that do mind, so it's just to have something to point to when people are complaining.[1] I don't really offer that as a suggestion to please anyone, just as an option to shut down the discussion. If hundreds of people sign up there, they might want to consider to make that the default, if it's ten, hey, they could even handle that manually. Kind regards T. 1. And, in fact, this derives from my view that Ubuntu's idea of package maintenance is far different from Debian's, resulting in the Debian packager branding the package much more than the Ubuntu changes in the vast majority of cases. But then my views are far too expensive to share with others. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:36:51PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: Sounds like an excellent opportunity to hold a poll about: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/12/msg00216.html Please send proposed ballot(-items) to me personally, and I'll set it up tomorrow or so. Thank you. I've sent you my proposals. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Le mardi 17 janvier 2006 à 12:46 -0600, Adam Heath a écrit : On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: What I find very dissapointing is that mdz asked on debian-devel twice for a decision from debian how ubuntu should handle the maintainer Field without any luck: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00678.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00260.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/01/msg00966.html 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). Even better, they could stop crediting themselves for changes initiated by Debian developers. http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news/2005-December/33.html -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on this subject. Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is not absolute unanimity on the alternative. That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you attribute malicious intent. Um, I have said nothing about your intent. I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs. What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do. Right, because you are now interested in scalability. If you were *really* interested in scalability, then you wouldn't adopt the wonderful hey, all the patches are on our website, come and get 'em! approach. You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. Which is *fine*, you don't need to. But then, geez, stop pretending you are a great cooperator with Debian. In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and accusatory. There's simply no cause for it. The most productive thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions therein. Do what has *already been suggested*. You need to be using different version numbers *anyway* if you are recompiling the packages. So given that you are doing that (right?!) it is no trouble to adjust the fields. Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to collect information? Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to piss you off? I didn't say you want to piss anyone off. What I said was that what you are doing is having that effect. I think it's a reaction you wish didn't happen, but not so much that you are willing to change Ubuntu's practices. Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too. Nonsense. What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual. Please read the previous threads on this subject. No, you are distributing packages with incorrect Maintainer fields. That's not inaction, it's a specific action. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 08:15:42AM -0600, Joe Wreschnig wrote: Modify is a tricky word. Most of my packages go into Ubuntu unmodified, in that the diff.gz is the same. However, they use an entirely different infrastructure -- new minor GTK and Python versions. Which leads to the following slightly odd situation: 031b93c587b6ec6affd0f4f713e50189 debian/pool/main/d/debsums/debsums_2.0.24_all.deb f1d470a0dea2fdaf9342e32aa08b7e79 ubuntu/pool/universe/d/debsums/debsums_2.0.24_all.deb While Ubuntu is not, as you say, concerned with binary compatability it does make me vaguely uneasy to see such binaryNMUs with the same path name... although I guess this is no different to the zillions of RPMs out there from different distributions. --bod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be honest. Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers regarding Ubuntu practices. Can you describe the cases in which you have altered your practices in response to the views of Debian developers? I refer not to technical decisions or particular patches, but rather, things on the level of policy and overall structure. As far as I can tell, you have not done any such. This makes it seem unlikely that you really are willing to entertain such changes. Perhaps, though, I have missed. You have attempted to convince Debian that what you are doing is already cooperation, but that is not the same thing as a serious interest in what Debian would like. Instead, you have tried to convince us that what you are providing is what we should like. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you attribute malicious intent. Um, I have said nothing about your intent. I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs. If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be honest. You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers regarding Ubuntu practices. Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 09:25:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote: Personally, I'd suggest: * for unmodified debs (including ones that have been rebuilt, possibly with different versions of libraries), keep the Maintainer: field the same Joey Hess and others in this thread have said that this is not acceptable to them. What I need from Debian is either a clear consensus resulting from discussion among developers, Well, you're not going to get one when you're too busy telling us everything we suggest is wrong. All I can imagine you doing is encouraging people to even more firmly want nothing to do with Ubuntu. or an official decision from a position of authority. Otherwise, we'd just be chasing our tail trying to please individuals with conflicting opinions. If you're trying to do the right and best thing, we've got something to talk about. But asking for official decisions from a position of authority looks more like a way of finding someone else for people to blame. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be honest. Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. Done. -- - mdz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If that were true, you wouldn't be having this conversation with me. It is costing me an unreasonable amount of time to deal with this trivial issue, and I've spent a disproportionate amount of it going in circles with you. I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be honest. Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see something positive come out of this long and painful thread. - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. Ubuntu deserves better than to be represented by toys out of the pram when three yes/no questions to -devel don't bring consensus. Shame we don't always get what's deserved, isn't it? (-devel dropped because this is not technical) -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tuesday 17 January 2006 16:54, Matt Zimmerman wrote: You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. This is, again, insulting, and nonsensical in the face of the repeated dialogues I have initiated and participated in with Debian developers regarding Ubuntu practices. Debian deserves better than to be represented by this kind of behavior. What BSG writes is the feeling I'm getting from you as well. This is not Planet Ubuntu, Debian doesn't exist purely to source Ubuntu. I'm personally tired of the attitude from Ubuntu users and developers alike that this is Planet Ubuntu. -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got Jabber? http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber pgpJOBKFvNCWw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: For those who care about their packages in Ubuntu
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: David Nusinow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 04:58:40PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm quickly losing interest in discussing this with you at all, to be honest. Then, um, don't. Doesn't affect me either way. Thomas, if you don't care about a topic please don't waste all of our time while you browbeat your opposition (and in this case, fellow Debian developer) in to the ground. Some of us who do care might want to see something positive come out of this long and painful thread. I do care about the topic. I do not care about Matt's ego. I'm in line with David. Thomas, if you care about the topic, you must be interested in convincing the one who can make a change on Ubuntu's policy. And the person in question is Matt. If you scare your only interlocutor with Ubuntu, then you can be sure that you won't get what you want. And what's interesting is the actual result, not the discussion itself ! (Or reworded: avoid flames if you want a positive outcome, otherwise it would look like you're only interesed in the confrontation) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
