>>>>> "Wouter" == Wouter Verhelst <wou...@debian.org> writes:
Wouter> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 08:40:03AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> That said, even there there are tradeoffs. As an example, Ubuntu
>> tries to use unmodified Debian source packages where possible.
>> In some cases I think that the maintenance advantages of doing
>> this and the slight but real political pressure it creates to
>> push changes upstream to Debian may justify switching on
>> dpkg-vendor.
Wouter> I disagree with that, because it forgets why you're pushing
Wouter> things to Debian.
Wouter> The point of pushing things upstream is so that you as well
Wouter> as upstream end up being the same, and the maintenance
Wouter> difference disappears. By switching on dpkg-vendor, you're
Wouter> *not* the same; instead, you're hiding your difference. This
Wouter> is not generally helpful; it simply moves the maintenance
Wouter> burden from Ubuntu to Debian (where it simply does not
Wouter> belong).
I think that we're agreed that evaluating the maintenance burden is
exactly the right criteria.
Imagine a case where the same folks are maintaining a package for
multiple distributions and where the difference is small but important.
In such a case I think our users and the free software community might
best be served by a single repository and switching on something a lot
like dpkg-vendor.
Imagine a case where it's a different set of people doing the work for
Debian than the distribution that wants the change. The Debian
maintainers are not in a good position to test the change and have no
desire to do so. There, switching on vendor seems like the wrong
option.
We're a group of volunteers; we encourage cross-project collaboration
and working together. I believe that the primary consideration should
be what reduces the burden on those doing the work. There are secondary
considerations of course.
--Sam
