Le jeudi 01 avril 2010 à 17:18 -0700, Kip Warner a écrit : > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 08:43 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > Guys, > > Hey Gilles. > > > although this might sound like a good idea, please remember a couple > > of > > things: > > * upstream generally doesn't know well about respective > > distributions build system which means they will most likely > > make mistakes and end up not maintaining it that much > > There are tens of millions of people worldwide using Debian based > distributions and most of those just take the vanilla debianization and > might add a desktop icon here, or a minor postinstall hook there. Dare I > even say, most of the Seahorse users are likely using some flavour of > Debian. Maintaining it is usually trivial and often just involves adding > a line or two to debian/control or adding to debian/changelog. > > Starting with Ubuntu's debian folder as a boiler plate, this becomes > even easier. like I said (and to reply to a point you make later in your mail), using distribution tools, you can most of the time build an updated package in a matter of minutes with the documentation available for each distro. > Moreover, downstream patches are often important when they involve > security issues in which case integrating them isn't a bad thing. They > are all logically organized into debian/patches downstream patches can be one of two things: * upstream patches, that don't need to be present twice (sort of) in upstream's tree * downstream feature patch or integration to the distro which is most of the time not something upstream want or at least not as is > This longstanding tradition of decoupling the relation between > downstream and upstream originated in a time when there was a far > greater heterogeneous distribution of GNU distributions out there than > now. Adding a single folder (debian), or two (rpm), hardly can be seen > as clutter and convolution. it is clutter and always was. For the record, if you browse some gnome projects history, you will find specs files and debian folders. All of them were removed (afaict) for various reasons already stated in this thread like being completely outdated, completely wrong wrt to current best practice of the distribution, plainly ignored by the packagers of the target distributions for a reason or another. This also can be have happened because the original upstream maintainer happened to know how to package for distro x but then development switched to another person which doesn't know how to maintain it and the packaging ends up in the previous cases I mentioned. There is also the simple consideration of write access to the vcs, there is already quite a lot of people with write access, developers, translators, how many would represent packages, how many distributions should we accept ? Please don't say only debian/rpm based distributions, this wouldn't make sense, not even saying, how would multiple debian based distributions would be handled ? They can't use the same control folder. Anyway, I think that if you really want a community discussion, you should move this thread to say desktop-devel-discussions mailing list. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue <gilles dartiguelongue esiee org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=