ubuntu at kitterman.com
Tue Oct 16 17:10:27 UTC 2007
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 11:51, João Pinto wrote:
fixed top posting (again).
> > Ubuntu has official repositories. Getdeb isn't one of them. I don't
> > know what can be clearer than that. If you want to be "Official" talk to
> > the Ubuntu Tech Board. That's what Backports did.
> > You provide packages that are newer/not in the official repositories.
> > With the exception of packages that are legally questionable
> > for the official repositories, why?
> > If you would focus your work towards the actual Ubuntu repositories, more
> > people would benifit. It's not that I think what you are doing it wrong,
> > but
> > that much of it is duplicative and it'd be better for all if your efforts
> > were more in the official repositories. That said, you are free to
> > volunteer however you see best. To me it seems like your wasting a lot
> > of effort, but clearly you have an agenda that I don't understand.
> > Scott K
> did you missed the part that I told we do not provide a repository and the
> reasons for such limitation ?
> What do official repositories have to do with a non repository based
> software distribution ?
> What have official repositories to do with "outside of Ubuntu" ? Ubuntu is
> composed by a large community which works on a broad range of areas, it is
> not just about official repositories.
Sure. There is an Ubuntu community. In my opinion you are working outside of
it, but to each his owne.
> We provide packages which are new/not in the official repositories,
> because, we want them to become available for the users. If your question,
> is, why don't we follow the MOTU processes to make them available, then we
> go into another subject which is not about getdeb. Neither would I be able
> to represent all the individuals which create/submit/request packages to
> getdeb, some of them do also parallel work, they are submitting both to
> getdeb and to the official processes, on getdeb it is likely that they will
> become available in 1 week, the same package, following official processes,
> may take several weeks, or months, please note that our QA requirements are
> not as strict(good) as the Debian/Ubuntu packages.
For updates to existing packages when the repositories are open for it, the
backports timeline can be similar if users are motivated.
You've said before that I misinterpret your statements when it sounds to me
like you say you unwilling to package things properly, but that's what I'm
> Again my question, which people benefits from Ubuntu official repositories
> and does not from GetDeb ?
The -updates/-security repositories are enabled by default and -backports is
there to be easily enabled if someone wants them. GetDeb is an entirely
separate thing that people have to go look for. I don't understand why this
is so confusing.
> We are not doing duplicate work, we use a lot of Debian/Universe/Backports
> build rules, Debian/Universe/Backports can use our building rules, what is
> the effort duplication you are talking about ?
Not if you work separately. If you've created a proper package, why not get
it uploaded and backported?
> We would not keep "wasting" efforts for 1 year unless we got very positive
> feedback from our work, which we do. I did not present this project at the
> beginning because I knew I would run the risk of getting comments like this
> that would probably break my motivation, comments for which I was not
> prepared, I was lacking he skills, know-how, team collaboration and strong
> believe on the value of the project, something which I do have now.
Automatix has lots of positive feedback too. It doesn't mean it's a good
thing for users to be using. Stop and consider for a minute that the reason
you get positive feedback is that you are packaging updates and such and NOT
putting them in the official repositories. It's a self fullfiling prophecy.
> I do respect your personal opinion about the "waste of time" which is the
> getdeb work, however I do not appreciate that you use the word "official"
> to shield your personal opinion.
There are official repositories. I didn't make that up.
I do think there is a lot of duplication of effort.
> We may become an official project, or we may not, it will depend on our
> ability to improve our processes and trustworthy, still, this is not a
> present objective, we still have a long road to run on the technical side.
> Our work is about collaboration, not about competition.
I note that you are distributing gnucash 2.2.1 for Feisty:
when the same version is available in feisty-backports:
Note that because of your ~getdeb naming convention your version will be
preferred (have a higher version number) than the feisty-backport.
Why do you distribute software that is available from official repositories?
Why do you do it in a way the prefers your packages to theses?
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss