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 -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
