GetDeb Project

João Pinto lamego.pinto at
Tue Oct 16 19:43:08 UTC 2007


> For updates to existing packages when the repositories are open for it,
> backports timeline can be similar if users are motivated.
Is the timeline similar ? Are the users motivated ? Do backports reach a
broad audience ?
Getdeb/Backports/Ubuntu/Debian/insert your preferred option here  "Can be"
much better  "If" .

> You've said before that I misinterpret your statements when it sounds to
> like you say you unwilling to package things properly, but that's what I'm
> hearing again.
What is "Properly" for Debian, may not be "Properly" for Ubuntu, or the way
What is "Properly" for Getdeb, may not be "Properly" for Ubuntu, or the way
Getdeb packages are mixed between "Properly" for Debian,  "Properly" for
Ubuntu and "Properly" for GetDeb, if you are trying to say that I am
unwilling to make every package "Ubuntu Properly", you are correct, and it
is not a matter of will it is a matter of not having the required resources
and skills to do it, the cost is, lower quality for some packages, a few
packages just as "Properly" packaged as grabbing the source and compiling,
however they were created by someone which understands how to properly
compile linux software.

>Not if you work separately.  If you've created a proper package, why not
>it uploaded and backported?
Again, this is a personal choice, I do believe the few team members which
have the ability to create a proper package from scratch already do also
upload it to some official source, Debian or Ubuntu.
If you want to guarantee this on an automated fashion, we can arrange that,
do you have some entry point for this ?
I can add a line to our automated building system to upload the package to
the backports building server. However you will get all the packages,
because for reviewing, sorry, that is a tedious and time consuming task
which depends on the specific requirements you are reviewing, that is not
something I could do for the backports.

> The -updates/-security repositories are enabled by default and -backports
> 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
> is so confusing.
GetDeb is the only "thing" which provides latest versions and brand new
software that people need for the "current" Ubuntu version, on a user
friendly fashion, with screenshots, video links, user comments, etc, what is
confusing is your continuously comparison between getdeb and a plain
If you do believe backports at their current state are sufficient, than,
please promote it, make it appealing for the users and spread it. There is
so many software to cover, and we are so few.

>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
Right, and had a lot of negative too, again, but let's not get out of  the
subject, the Automatix team already reacted with a clear statement of
Do you have any evidence to believe that we are harming any system in any
way may other than for minor QA failures ? (We did corrupt the mime cache of
a few systems, that was a serious issue) .

>you get positive feedback is that you are packaging updates and such and
>putting them in the official repositories.  It's a self fullfiling
Not again, are we talking about what getdeb does, or what about others do on
a different way ?

>I note that you are distributing gnucash 2.2.1 for Feisty:
Possible causes:
- We have packaged it before it was available on backports
- We missed to verify that it was on backports, or for some odd reason we
decided to publish it knowing that it was already available on backports,
regardless of the reason,  it was great for those more than 500 users that
installed it from getdeb, if we did some duplicated work, bad luck for us,

> Why do you distribute software that is available from official
Read above

The -getdeb was changed to ~getdeb, because, as per one of our users
suggestion (a long time ago) that would make our packages minor compared to
the ubuntu official packages (for the same version). No one raised that
problem regarding the backports packages, until now. I will look into this
in the future.


João Pinto
IRC: Lamego @
Jabber ID: lamego.pinto at
GetDeb Project Manager -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list