Matt Zimmerman wrote: > Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisely this way. > Debian publishes a large portion of its changes primarily in the form of > monolithic diffs relative to upstream source. The last time I saw figures, > the usage of dpatch, cdbs, etc. was rising, but not yet the standard > operating procedure.
This is a falacy, for example, I would never use any of these (IMHO
useless at best and often damaging[1]) patch management systems (I know
of two much better ones: subversion and arch), but this does not mean
that I do not feed (and, as necessary, re-feed for new upstream
releases) individual patches to all my upstreams for every
non-debian-specific change that I make to my packages. I have no reason
to think that I'm alone in this.
On the other hand, Ubuntu does not seem to do this mutch at all unless
the Ubuntu developer involved happens to be on the Debian team for the
package (as in d-i and gnome packages).
> > (To answer the thread leader, I consider Ubuntu to be more and more of a
> > fork and less and less a derivative distribution. If Ubuntu doesn't
> > start to re-converge with Debian significantly after sarge is released,
> > and we end up with two sets of X.org packaging, etc, then I will give up
> > and just consider it purely a fork.)
>
> Ubuntu re-converges with Debian very regularly. I think what you meant to
> say is that you want Debian to re-converge with Ubuntu.
Not really.
> Regarding your specific example, I know of no reason why Debian couldn't use
> Ubuntu's X.org packages when Debian is ready to make the transition, but in
> the end that will be the XSF's decision, not Ubuntu's.
Let's assume that they don't (since they're not, exactly, TTBOMK). Now
does Ubuntu re-converge its X.org packaging with Debian's new
packaging, or do you stay forked?
--
see shy jo
[1] Based on my experiences as an a) RM reviewing patches and b) NMUer for
security holes.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
