> I would say that this issue with the Debian packages of GitLab should > be addressed by helping the Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers to improve > the Debian packages and to keep them more up-to-date.
Francesco, great idea, go ahead. You would be most welcome to help with Debian Ruby Extra packaging. Ondřej On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, 00.18 Francesco Poli, <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > Hello, > I am a Debian contributor (and Alioth user). > > First off, I think that [replacing] Alioth with something more > maintainable is a good thing to do and I am grateful to the people who > are working hard to make this happen. > > [replacing]: < > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2017/09/msg00004.html> > > I read through the [minutes] of the Alioth sprint and I learned that > GitLab has been chosen as the project-hosting-system to use (rather > than Pagure, which was initially suggested). Well, let's hope that > things go smoothly, despite the "open core" strategy followed by the > company behind GitLab (a strategy that I dislike)... > > [minutes]: < > https://gobby.debian.org/export/Sprints/AliothSuccessors2017/Minutes> > > > In the [minutes], I read: > > [...] > | * Decision: We are going with GitLab and we are using upstreams packages. > > I am a bit worried about the message that the Debian Project is sending > out by refusing to use a Debian package and preferring the unpackaged > upstream version. > I mean: from the point of view of someone who is outside of the > Project, it seems that the Debian Project itself thinks that Debian > packages should be avoided! :-( > > | -> Debian packages are same in stable, testing and unstable, and so a > | bit stale compared to upstream: > [...] > | - we understand and acknowledge that packaging such a big piece of > software > | is a lot of work, especially regarding architectural changes, but > we will > | need fresher versions especially if we want support (consulting) > from > | Gitlab, request new features to go in the CE edition, etc. Also, > we are > | in a hurry. > > I would say that this issue with the Debian packages of GitLab should > be addressed by helping the Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers to improve > the Debian packages and to keep them more up-to-date. > > After all, if you just fix an issue on your own system, the same issue > will have to be fixed elsewhere again and again. On the other hand, if > you help the maintainer to fix the issue *in* the Debian package, every > user of the package will benefit from the fix... > You probably agree that this is a basic idea behind the very concept of > "distro". > > I understand the hurry, but I am convinced that the Debian packages of > GitLab should be used as soon as possible for the Alioth replacement. > > | > | -> Debian packages do follow the policies and standards of Debian > (GOOD!), but > | it means that anything you find about gitlab does NOT fit. Howtos, > tips, whatever, > | everything is assuming the upstream look. -> Added Maintenance > Burden. > > This reasoning reinforces the bad message sent out by the decision to > use the upstream version: it might even seem that the Debian Project > itself is admitting that using Debian packages is unpractical and that > Debian policies and standards make everything work in a weird way. :-( > > | > | Note: If, at some point in the future, the package as in Debian, is > the better > | choice, we can switch. > > As I said, I really hope that this switch will happen very very soon. > If possible, even before the official debut of the Alioth replacement! > > > I hope that voicing my concerns was useful. > Bye and thanks for reading so far. > > > P.S.: I am not subscribed to the mailing lists; please Cc me on > replies, if any. Thanks for your understanding! > > > -- > http://www.inventati.org/frx/ > There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! > ..................................................... Francesco Poli . > GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE > -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org>
