Ondrej Certik wrote: > Hello,
>> >> current stable release on a whim, so I think getting Sage into Ubuntu >> is >> >> a >> >> much more reachable goal. It also seems that Ubuntu is getting a lot >> >> more >> >> mindshare in the *desktop* these days (compared to Debian unstable). >> >> I meant Debian *stable* in the end, not *unstable* > > That is certainly true. > >> Disclaimer: I can only describe from what I saw happening on the LyX and >> ATLAS mailing lists. I have never been a Debian packager/developer nor >> have I ever applied to be one, so I might be mistaken about several >> issues. > > I am also not a DD (Debian Developer), but I created and got around 5 > packages to Debian unstable already. > But do you still need a sponsor? >> >> Well, Debian supports a lot more architectures and from what I know it >> is >> discouraged to limit the architecture due to non-technical reasons. Sage >> is widely used on Linux and x86, x86-64 and to some extend on PPC and >> Itanic, but what about the other 9 or so architectures Debian supports? >> They provide build infrastructure, but who would care about Sage on >> Linux/ARM? > > If noone is using it, than no bugs will be filled against it I guess. > And if it doesn't even build, that's of course another issue. But that > usually signals that something is wrong. > >> The other issue I have seen was that in stable you had to patch bugs, >> not >> add features. Specfically: When LyX 1.4.4 came out the Debian stable >> package was still 1.4.2, so instead of upgrading to 1.4.4 wholesale the >> maintainer had to pick the patches out that fixed bugs and to apply >> them. > > I thought only the vulnerability bugs are fixed in the stable > distribution. Well, that of course is an issue. But isn't the same > problem in Ubuntu then? > Yes, I believe so, but the greater release frequency would compensate to some extent. Overall the question whether Sage should be part of the distribution or whether there should be packages provided for distributions. I think that external packages just provide more flexibility and it is a prerequisite for distribution packages (in monolithic form or whatever) anyway. >> > It actually has the advantage of being both in Debian and >> > Ubuntu as it gets to Ubuntu automatically. >> >> That is certainly true, but I do not believe that William's scenario (2) >> will happen anytime soon. I believe that Sage can live just fine with >> scenario (1). > > Debian doesn't allow the scenario (1) (officially), but I thought > Ubuntu also doesn't. > Probably not, I would be surprised íf they did. A 150MB package that would be considered non-essential by most users probably wouldn't be on the disc images anyway, so providing it someplace else for download wouldn't make much of a difference. >> And looking at the pace of Sage releases: Who would want to work with >> the >> Sage released 1.5 years ago? Who would maintain such old releases? That >> and the (more or less) reliable 6 months release time frame of Ubuntu >> could make the (potential) synchronisation of Sage releases a lot more >> plannable, because who knows when the next Debian stable will come. I >> use >> to admin some boxes with Debian stable a long time ago and the >> neverending >> wait for Woody (finally released in 2002) made me switch distributions. >> Sarge came along nearly 3 years later, so the release frequency of >> Ubuntu >> has been higher than 3 times that of Debian stable. > > I really thought only the security bugs are fixed in the stable, > otherwise the packages are untouched. But I've been only using > unstable for last couple of years... Of course it doesn't make sense > to maintain old releases, but I think it is not necessary. So please > correct me if I am wrong. > It is more than security bugs, but overall the Debian people prefer stability over features in stable. And that is certainly a valid choice for many people. >> And some of the discussion regarding the removal on non-free >> documentation >> out of debian (I believe it was the glibc doc among other things) makes >> my >> head spin. The issue was postponed to get Sarge out of the door, but >> still. Alas, I don't want to start a flame war about Linux >> distributions, >> so anybody who feels offended please correct me offlist or put me in >> your >> kill file :) > > I think the flamewar only happens when people don't know how (or don't > want) to discuss. I think it's very good that Debian distinguishes > main and non-free, because I am always sure that when I install main, > I have all the rights are described in the Debian Free Software > Guidelines (DFSG). And the non-free is there for things that I need > (like wireless things, some documentation, google earth, ...) -- but > it reminds me that those programs are not free and thus I should be > aware that if I depend on them too much, I could easily get stuck > depending on something that I am not allowed to fix or use freely. I > think it's very cleverly invented. I agree, but (at least it seems to me personally) too much politics has not always served the Debian project well. I can understand the arguments about non-free kernel modules (and I don't run them, because I avoid buying that hardware), but (and this is only an example) the discussion of stripping all non-free firmware (and not non-redistributable) out of the kernel just lets me shake my head with wonders. In a similar matter it boils down to "free software" vs. "open source" - to the outsider it appears the same, but for the insider ... It reminds me of an old User Friendly the comic strip where after the techies have been allowed to install Linux the management assumes that they are happy, while it is revealed in the next pane that they are having an argument which Linux distribution to install. > The only problem is that because > Debian is only developed by volunteers, some things are quite slow, > and that's where Ubuntu comes in. > Well, you can certainly make that argument, but other volunteer driven distributions do not have that problem. I use Gentoo (besides OpenSuSE, Fedora Core, and a couple more) and even though they all have their problems Gentoo is community driven and releases 4 times a year. It isn't always a smooth ride, but in life there are always tradeoffs. Debian has profited immensely from Ubuntu (for example the KDE and Gnome packages shipped in Sarge were pushed by Ubuntu developers) and lots of former Debian developers nowadays work for and get paid by Ubuntu. And those packages they work on end up in Debian unstable/testing, so Debian certainly profits from Ubuntu, even though the general Slashdot tenor has been for some time that Ubuntu is bleeding Debian dry. To get back on topic: It seems certainly possible to get a deb working on the current Ubuntu distribution as well as Debian testing. Is nobody has tried by this weekend I will give it a shot at least on x86. Depending on when 2.7 is planned it might be even worthwhile to do so now :) > Ondrej Cheers, Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
