John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes: > The license issue was just an example (hence the braces). The reasoning > is that the Debian packaging is supposed to be independent of upstream, > especially since we cannot always follow upstream, during a freeze, for > example.
That makes sense. > Assume we have version 3.0 in Debian and upstream has 3.5 and we're > frozen. During the freeze, someone discovers a nasty bug in subsurface > which is considered RC (release critical) in Debian, but gets fixed in > 3.5.1 upstream. > > Now, since we'd be in freeze, uploading the new version 3.5.1 into > unstable to fix the problem in testing would not be possible. Instead, > the fix would have to be backported to 3.0 and fixed in the Debian > packaging. If the Debian packaging would be part of upstream, > backporting the bug would be a bit difficult since the fix would be > realized as a patch in the debian/patches directory which wouldn't apply > if upstream was already at 3.5.1 (which includes the fix naturally) and > the official Debian packaging (which is at 3.0) would be part of the > upstream repository. > > I am aware that you could probably avoid this problem with branches, but > I think it would just make things difficult. Debian cannot simply be > up-to-date with upstream and thus upstream shouldn't maintain the > Debian-specific part. Yes, all this could be worked around but it creates a dependency of Debian on upstream and that's not desired. No problem. >>> A great place for maintaining the packaging for Debian is github, for >>> example. >> >> Well - I run my own git server at git.hohndel.org but we can use >> whatever works for the packaging. > > Sure, that was just a suggestion. I'd just keep it independent from > upstream. OK, no problem. /D -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130303153712.74248.fmu31...@air.gr8dns.org
