On Monday 30 July 2007 01:50, Jordan Mantha wrote: > On 7/29/07, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was recently subscribed to the debian-mentors mail list (working on > > getting a package uploaded to Debian) and discovered that the author of > > the Debian Mentors system is getting ready to overhaul that system. > > > > That got me thinking... > > > > Why do REVU an mentors need to be separate? > > A couple thoughts: > 1. For a new Ubuntu contributor Debian can be a quite intimidating. > I remember being quite confused trying to figure out *both* Ubuntu and > Debian while doing my first package from scratch. Of course this is > also a big reason to "combine forces" between REVU and debian-mentors, > *if* it can be pulled off.
That and more reviewers. The combined tool set would have to help here. > 2. There are social differences between Ubuntu and Debian as well as > just the technical ones. It's sometimes easier to maintain our own > system. We'd need to get by-in from DDs and the current debian-mentors > maintainers. For instance, who should be allowed to review/sponsor? > Most MOTUs are not DDs and vice-versa so I can imagine there would be > quite a bit we'd need to work out. Yes. I agree. I was envisioning that commenters would have to be labled Debian Developer or Ubuntu Developer so people would know. It would also require reviewers to understand and respect the social/technical differences. > > Except for versioning and release, with minor exceptions (like the > > freeness of GFDL) packages can be made identical for both Debian and > > Ubuntu. > > There is also the issue of native Ubuntu packages. I imagine Debian > isn't much interested in Ubuntu-specific stuff so we still need to > deal with those. True. Dealing with Ubuntu specific stuff would have to be managed. Uploaders would (generally) have to have a way of indicating if the package was intended for Debian, Ubuntu, or both. > > I could see up pooling resources on reviewing new packages and if a MOTU > > thought a package was ready to upload, then they could upload it and if a > > DD thought a package was ready, they could sponsor it. We'd have to deal > > with version/release, but I'd imagine it could be programmed in. > > This is a really interesting suggestion, in fact I don't know why it > hasn't been suggested before. Perhaps because it would take a large > amount of Debian/Ubuntu cooperation and we tend to separate packages > into Debian packages and Ubuntu packages. It also seems to me that > quite a number of contributors to REVU don't really want to deal with > Debian, as it is more work for a distro they don't use. Yes, but IMO they should. Working stuff back into Debian makes for a stronger Ubuntu in the long run. Additionally, I view it as an ethical obligation. As I understand it that's ~ sabdfl's position too. > I personally tend to think that with our resources we are better off > really encouraging people to put their packages through Debian unless > it is Ubuntu-specific. I found debian-mentors to be very helpful and > getting a package into Debian fairly easy, once I figured out how > things worked. I think working on "How does an Ubuntu user/contributor > get their package into Debian?" would benefit MOTU/Universe. Also > figuring out how to get Debian to "take on" packages created by Ubuntu > users. I know several cases where a contributor wanted to get the > package into Ubuntu rather than Debian because they didn't want to be > the Debian maintainer. Well team maintenance seems to be growing in Debian. If it's Python or Perl they don't have to maintain it. There are teams for that. For Python I wrote: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian/PythonModulesTeam And more generally there is: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ContributingToDebian/ I think better documentation and pushing contributors towards Debian are good interim steps. Scott K -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
