[Desktop13.04-Topic] GNOME plans review

Ma Xiaojun damage3025 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 17 00:06:32 UTC 2012

On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Robert Ancell
<robert.ancell at canonical.com> wrote:
> My point is we *shouldn't* take the time to update Debian as it is all
> cost and no benefit. If you think of Debian as being directly upstream
> from Ubuntu it sounds good but in reality it is a more "sidestream". If
> it is outdated in Ubuntu we should update it in Ubuntu and if Debian
> also wants the update they should merge our changes across as we do the
> other direction. The most appropriate person to decide if the changes
> are appropriate is a Debian developer, not an Ubuntu developer.
Do you mean "main" or "universe"?
I have an example, TeX Live, which is quite important for academic
people and some others.
It is in "main" section. ( I thought it is in "universe" section)
>From the link, you should easily see that it stuck on 2009 version since Lucid.
And the version bumps to 2012 in Quantal.

For sure there is a bug and now marked as "Fix Released" since 2012 is
uploaded to Quantal.
Note this comment from a Debian developer, what's your comment on this?

> We don't need to switch from Debian to Arch as we don't need any
> particular packaging. If you look at the versions page you see we
> already maintain the majority of packages in Ubuntu anyway.
Sounds like you mean more and more packages are going to "main".
And we just need to take care of ourselves.

I'm not convinced, though.
The first thing is the experience from TeX Live gives little
confidence on "main" packages.
The second thing is that the documentation is still recommending go
through Debian and then sync to Ubuntu.
I've filed need-packaging, upgrade-software-version bugs several times.
The ridiculous thing for me is that I always find myself reports
duplicated RFP bugs on Debian side.
And I never get interesting reply from Ubuntu side.

More information about the ubuntu-desktop mailing list