GetDeb Project

[Scott Kitterman]

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
> >
> Hello,
> 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 
hearing again.

> 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.

How so?

I note that you are distributing gnucash 2.2.1 for Feisty:

http://www.getdeb.net/app.php?name=GnuCash
http://www.getdeb.net/release.php?id=1496

when the same version is available in feisty-backports:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnucash/2.2.1-1ubuntu4~feisty1

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?

Scott K