debian-multimedia.org considered harmful - redux

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

[ moving discussion to pkg-multimedia-maintainers ]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 04:42:50PM +0100, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> A recurring problem we have in pkg-multimedia is that
> debian-multimedia.org provides packages that replace both applications
> and libraries that we already ship with Debian.
<snip>

Thanks for this summary, Reinhard. I was aware of most of it, although
probably many others on -devel were not.

> Friendly discussion with the maintainer of debian-multimedia.org to
> not replace libraries such as libavcodec and friends have failed
> ultimatively (BTW, that is part of the reason why we've ended up with
> an epoch of '4', dmo uses epoch '5');  he has repeatedly shown that is
> not interested in collaborating with pkg-multimedia at all. He also
> does not seem interested in installing libraries in a way that they do
> not interfere with 'official' Debian packages (e.g., by changing
> SONAMES, or installing in private directories, etc.).

I'm concerned about the above, as well as by the fund-raising on
debian-multimedia.o which have no disclaimer of non affiliation with
Debian.

I'd like to know if, in the opinion of the Debian Multimedia Team as a
whole, debian-multimedia.org is currently more harmful than useful to
the Debian Project and its users.

We're in no business of having to comment on an all unofficial package
repositories out there. But for those that (1) carry the "Debian" name
and/or (2) are run by Debian Developer we are in a position to comment.
In particular: strictly speaking (1) is a violation of the Debian
trademark policy unless we explicitly authorize it. Regarding (2), we
should expect from all Debian Developer not to get intentionally in the
way of work done within the Debian Project by the means of work done
outside of it.

If all past discussions with the debian-multimedia maintainers have
failed, and if the team thinks there is still a problem, then we should
use the above arguments to reopen discussions.

Ideally, we should try to come to technical agreements that allows the
two repositories to coexist with minimum hassle for both official Debian
packaging initiatives (i.e. your work) and the users.  If that will fail
again, everyone will then be free to go its own path, but at that point
not using the "Debian" name on both sides.

Note that I explicitly ask for a team position on this matter. I'm well
aware of Reinhard position, also thanks to his mail, but I'd like to
understand if his is the uniform view on the team, or if there are other
positions within the team.

Cheers.

PS I'm not subscribed to pkg-multimedia-maintainers, please Cc:-me on
   follow-ups. M-F-T set accordingly.
-- 
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 »
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20120318/665b6418/attachment.pgp>