debian-multimedia.org considered harmful - redux

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On May 3, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:26:27PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> I've drafted a message that I'd like to send to Christian publicly
>> Cc:-ing this list. It is attached to this mail for review by the
>> pkg-multimedia team. (Yes, I know this is a public list and Christian
>> will likely read it before the review, but I don't particularly mind: it
>> will just anticipate a public discussion we'd like to have anyhow.)
>> 
>> I'd appreciate your feedback on it.
> 
> I've now patched my first draft trying to take into account your
> feedback without changing the substance of the message I think we should
> send through. The new draft is attached.
> 
> You're feedback is, again, very welcome.
> If you have no further changes to suggest or objections, I can send it
> this week-end.
> 
> Either way, please let me know,
> Cheers.
> -- 
> Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
> Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
> Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
> « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
> 
> From: Stefano Zacchiroli <leader at debian.org>
> Date: May 3, 2012 9:22:49 AM EDT
> To: Christian Marillat <marillat at debian.org>, marillat at free.fr
> Cc: pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> Bcc: leader at debian.org
> Subject: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia
> 
> 
> Dear Christian,
>  as you probably are aware of, there are recurring discussions on the
> package duplication between the official Debian archive and the
> debian-multimedia.org ("d-m.o" from now on) that you maintain.
> 
> AFAIK, the Debian team in charge of maintaining multimedia packages
> (that I'm Cc:-ing) is not happy about the duplication and has approached
> you about that [1], providing some evidence of the troubles that it
> causes to them and to Debian users that also happen to use d-m.o. OTOH
> I'm sure you are maintaining d-m.o to provide a useful service to Debian
> users, when some of the packages you distribute are not available in
> Debian proper.
> 
> [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2012-March/025498.html
> 
> Personally, I think that principle is fine, but I'm worried about the
> duplication part. Not only due to the troubles that it might cause to
> users, but also for the apparent waste of maintenance energies. Energies
> that could be put into better use if you and the pkg-multimedia team
> could find a way to collaborate, and to do so contributing to the
> *official* Debian packaging of the concerned software.
> 
> I have no specific opinion on the technical claims that d-m.o causes
> trouble to official Debian packages. That might be true or not. Ditto
> for your allegations of conflict of interest in the maintenance of
> ffmpeg or libav in Debian. But I observe that *in* Debian we do have
> mechanisms to solve that kind of issues, if and when they arise. As long
> as you keep on doing your work outside Debian instead of raising your
> concerns within Debian, we'll have to keep on assuming that what is
> being done in Debian is fine and is entitled to the official status that
> come with the name "Debian".
> 
> Thinking about it, I think we should choose one of the two possible way
> forward:
> 
> 1) You and the pkg-multimedia team reach an agreement on
>   which-packages-belong-where. One way to settle would be that for
>   every package that exist in the official Debian archive, the same
>   package should not exist in d-m.o, unless it has a version that does
>   not interfere with the official packages in "standard" Debian
>   installations. Another way would be to rename packages and sonames.
> 
>   I understand that such agreements would give a sort of "advantage" to
>   the pkg-multimedia people over d-m.o, but that seems to be warranted
>   by the fact that they are doing the official packaging, while you're
>   not.  If, as I hope, you could start doing your packaging work
>   (wherever possible) within Debian as well, things would be different
>   and we could consider solving potential technical conflicts in the
>   usual Debian way.
> 
> 2) You stop using "debian" as part of the domain name of your
>   repository, which is confusing for users (e.g. [2,3]). That would
>   allow each part to keep on doing what they want in terms of
>   packaging, but at least would remove any of the existings doubts
>   about the official status of d-m.o.
> 
>   [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660924#20
>   [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668308#47
> 
>   I can imagine that would be a painful step for you to take, given the
>   well established domain name. But it seems fair to ask you to do so
>   if we couldn't manage to find an agreement between you and the
>   official Debian packaging initiative of software you're maintaining
>   in an unofficial repository.
> 
> We could also consider various in-between solutions, such as adding
> suitable prominent disclaimers on your website explaining that your
> initiative is not affiliated with the Debian Project, that it might
> cause technical incompatibilities with official packages, and that the
> donations you're collecting are for you personally and not for the
> Debian Project.
> 
> I hope we can reach an agreement on (some variants of) point (1). I'm
> personally convinced d-m.o could offer a very useful service to Debian
> users, for packages that are not part of the official archive. But d-m.o
> really needs to do so in a way that doesn't get in the way of official
> packaging activities, otherwise it will remain a perennial source of
> conflicts, to the detriment of both parties.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> PS we really want this discussion to be public, so please keep the
>   pkg-multimedia-maintainers list Cc:-ed, as requested with my M-F-T
>   header. I'll otherwise take the liberty to forward your replies to
>   the list myself.
> -- 
> Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
> Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
> Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
> « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


Well written and even handed while clearly addressing the issues.  Nice work!

.hc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20120503/2ab61646/attachment-0001.html>