Re: [gnu.misc.discuss,gnu.emacs.gnus] Free software: Packagers vs Developers
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 12:45:35PM +0200, Per Abrahamsen wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr> writes:
> > > versions of free software. All the major Linux distributions does
> > > it, perhaps to gain a competitive advantage, but Debian seems to
> > > be worse than the rest.
> >
> > Per, could you elaborate on that?
>
> Not in a useful way. I hear developers swear about Debian more often
> than about e.g. Red Hat, despite Red Hat being more widespread.
probably because debian HAS a bug tracking system and debian developers
tend to put in a lot of effort to resolve bugs.
> > Among all the packages I maintain, the only one which is really
> > decoupled from upstream is queso, because the upstream maintainer do
> > not reply to any mail, even containing patches.
>
> Neither do I. I have no idea what to do with a bug report or patch
> comming from a middleman, who neither have the same direct experience
> of the problem as the user, nor the same knowledge of the code as the
> developer.
why not just treat it like any other bug report: if you understand it,
take appropriate action. if it makes no sense to you, ask for further
information.
seems absurdly obvious to me.
> Of course, I could try to contact the user directly, hope that he
> is willing to explain everything again, figure out what code he has
> received from Debian, try to figure out if the problem is due to my
> code or the Debian mangling, and then start from there. Instead, I
> just curse Debian for sabotaging my work, and delete the mail.
if you delete quality bug reports and patches from a particular user
simply because s/he is a debian developer then YOU are the problem.
it is part of a debian developer's responsibility when they take on a
package to co-ordinate bug reports, sort out debian-specific bugs from
upstream bugs and act as a "middleman" in getting those bugs resolved,
either by reporting them "upstream" or by fixing the bug and submitting
patches.
most developers would kill for a competent and knowledgable userbase who
know how to submit good bug reports, with or without patches. they don't
curse them and delete their mail.
> > That's why the queso package of Debian is 64-bits clean, unlike the
> > upstream tarball, works with rejecting routes, unlike the upstream
> > tarball, etc.
>
> Maybe if there hadn't been a Debian package with all these attributes,
> the _real_ queso would do all this. Benefitting _everybody_, not just
> Debian users.
you must have missed Stephane's point - he TRIED to get these fixes in
the upstream version but the author ignored his email. that leaves him
with two options: fix it himself, or include a broken queso in debian.
why should debian's package be broken just because the original author
is unresponsive to email?
Stephane's decision was the RIGHT solution...in fact, the only solution:
fix the bugs and make patches publicly available.
> I prefer ethics and social conventions to rigid rules. See for example
>
> <URL: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/>
>
> [....deleted...]
>
> Both Emacs and gcc ran under a closed development model, even if the
> alpha releases are free. The open development process most projects
> use now is a good thing, and can work if packagers show developers the
> respect not to release unreleased versions of the software.
many free programs specifically request that alpha versions not
be widely distributed. most debian developers will honor such
requests...it's not a rigid part of debian policy but it is established
tradition.
if you (or any author) doesn't want alpha versions to be widely
available then make sure that your wishes are known - put it at the top
of your README or on your program's web site if it has one. otherwise it
is reasonable for a debian or RH (or whatever) developer to assume that
since the license allows distribution that it is OK to distribute.
> > Reading back my work on my packages, I can feel confident that we
> > are not social parasits. We add value.
>
> You add value, but at the wrong place. You add it in the middle, thus
> only reaching a branch of the tree, instead of the top, where you
> would reach the entire tree. And by adding the value in the middle,
> you make it less likely that the value will reach the top. The users
> in your branch won't see the need.
what crap! debian developers submit patches back upstream. you can't
blame the debian developer when the upstream author ignores or deletes
the patch.
debian developers generally WANT their bugfix patches to be in the
upstream version, partly because we want everyone to benefit not just
debian users, and partly because it is less work to fix a problem once
than it is to re-patch a program every time a new version is released.
> "Oh, you need a 64bit clean version. Just use Debian."
"Oh, you need a 64bit clean version. the debian developer fixed that,
but the author hasn't folded in the patch yet. if you want it, you
can download the patch from ftp://ftp.debian.org/.......";
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: