Bug#701536: RM: subsurface -- RoQA; unmaintained package, maintainer MIA
Dirk Hohndel
dirk at hohndel.org
Sun Mar 3 15:37:12 PST 2013
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
> The license issue was just an example (hence the braces). The reasoning
> is that the Debian packaging is supposed to be independent of upstream,
> especially since we cannot always follow upstream, during a freeze, for
> example.
That makes sense.
> Assume we have version 3.0 in Debian and upstream has 3.5 and we're
> frozen. During the freeze, someone discovers a nasty bug in subsurface
> which is considered RC (release critical) in Debian, but gets fixed in
> 3.5.1 upstream.
>
> Now, since we'd be in freeze, uploading the new version 3.5.1 into
> unstable to fix the problem in testing would not be possible. Instead,
> the fix would have to be backported to 3.0 and fixed in the Debian
> packaging. If the Debian packaging would be part of upstream,
> backporting the bug would be a bit difficult since the fix would be
> realized as a patch in the debian/patches directory which wouldn't apply
> if upstream was already at 3.5.1 (which includes the fix naturally) and
> the official Debian packaging (which is at 3.0) would be part of the
> upstream repository.
>
> I am aware that you could probably avoid this problem with branches, but
> I think it would just make things difficult. Debian cannot simply be
> up-to-date with upstream and thus upstream shouldn't maintain the
> Debian-specific part.
Yes, all this could be worked around but it creates a dependency of
Debian on upstream and that's not desired. No problem.
>>> A great place for maintaining the packaging for Debian is github, for
>>> example.
>>
>> Well - I run my own git server at git.hohndel.org but we can use
>> whatever works for the packaging.
>
> Sure, that was just a suggestion. I'd just keep it independent from
> upstream.
OK, no problem.
/D
More information about the subsurface
mailing list