<p>On Apr 13, 2012 2:04 AM, "Reinhard Tartler" <<a href="mailto:siretart@gmail.com">siretart@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli <<a href="mailto:leader@debian.org">leader@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 01:07:44PM +0200, Alessio Treglia wrote:<br>
> >> Stefano, I think it's time to give you a clear answer, which is:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Alessio et al.,<br>
> > thank you for this answer and to Andres for having pointed me to past<br>
> > exchanges on this subject.<br>
> ><br>
> > I've drafted a message that I'd like to send to Christian publicly<br>
> > Cc:-ing this list. It is attached to this mail for review by the<br>
> > pkg-multimedia team. (Yes, I know this is a public list and Christian<br>
> > will likely read it before the review, but I don't particularly mind: it<br>
> > will just anticipate a public discussion we'd like to have anyhow.)<br>
><br>
> As usual, a very well drafted and balanced mail!<br>
><br>
> > I'd appreciate your feedback on it.<br>
><br>
> Let me comment inline.<br>
> ><br>
> > In particular, I'd like to know what exactly you'd like to ask d-m.o to<br>
> > do: I've speculated a request as part of my point (1), but it'd be<br>
> > better if you could comment on that, to transform my speculation in<br>
> > something you approve of.<br>
> ><br>
> > TIA,<br>
> > Cheers.<br>
> > --<br>
> > Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,<a href="http://pps.jussieu.fr">pps.jussieu.fr</a>,<a href="http://debian.org">debian.org</a>} . o .<br>
> > Maître de conférences ...... <a href="http://upsilon.cc/zack">http://upsilon.cc/zack</a> ...... . . o<br>
> > Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on <a href="http://identi.ca">identi.ca</a> ....... o o o<br>
> > « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
> > From: Stefano Zacchiroli <<a href="mailto:leader@debian.org">leader@debian.org</a>><br>
> > To: Christian Marillat <<a href="mailto:marillat@debian.org">marillat@debian.org</a>>, <a href="mailto:marillat@free.fr">marillat@free.fr</a><br>
> > Cc: <a href="mailto:pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org">pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org</a><br>
> > Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:25:45 +0200<br>
> > Subject: on package duplication between Debian and debian-multimedia<br>
> > Dear Christian,<br>
> > as you probably are aware of, there are recurring discussions on the<br>
> > package duplication between the official Debian archive and the<br>
> > <a href="http://debian-multimedia.org">debian-multimedia.org</a> ("d-m.o" from now on) that you maintain.<br>
> ><br>
> > AFAIK, the Debian team in charge of maintaining multimedia packages<br>
> > (that I'm Cc:-ing) is not happy about the duplication and has approached<br>
> > you about that [1], providing some evidence of the troubles that it<br>
> > causes to them and to Debian users that also happen to use d-m.o. OTOH<br>
> > I'm sure you are maintaining d-m.o to provide a useful service to Debian<br>
> > users, when some of the packages you distribute are not available in<br>
> > Debian proper.<br>
> ><br>
> > [1] <a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2012-March/025498.html">http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2012-March/025498.html</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Personally, I think that principle is fine, but I'm worried about the<br>
> > duplication part. Not only due to the troubles that it might cause, but<br>
> > also (and more importantly) for the apparent waste of maintenance<br>
> > energies. Energies that could be put into better use if you and the<br>
> > pkg-multimedia team could find a way to collaborate, and to do so<br>
> > contributing to the *official* Debian packaging of the concerned<br>
> > software.<br>
><br>
> The harm is not only on the waste of maintainers time side, but also<br>
> on the users side. In particular, have a look at<br>
> <a href="http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660924">http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660924</a>, where a<br>
> confused user gets very angry because he did not understand my<br>
> response (#5). Fabian tried to explain it to him (#10) but it turns<br>
> out in #20 that the original reporter did neither understand the<br>
> technical notion of an 'epoch' in the version number, nor that "d-m.o"<br>
> is not an "official" debian mirror.</p>
<p>I agree that this also adds to confusion amongst users and wastes their time. See bug #668308 message #47. Here a user came to realize that xbmc does not run with libraries from dmo.</p>
<p>> > I have no specific opinion on the technical claims that d-m.o causes<br>
> > trouble to official Debian packages. That might be true or not. Ditto<br>
> > for your allegations of conflict of interest in the maintenance of<br>
> > ffmpeg or libav in Debian. But I observe that *in* Debian we do have<br>
> > mechanisms to solve that kind of issues, if and when they arise. As long<br>
> > as you keep on doing your work outside Debian instead of raising your<br>
> > concerns within Debian, we'll have to keep on assuming that what is<br>
> > being done in Debian is fine and is entitled to the official status that<br>
> > come with the name "Debian".<br>
> ><br>
> > Thinking about it, I think we should choose one of the two possible way<br>
> > forward:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1) You and the pkg-multimedia team reach an agreement on<br>
> > which-packages-belong-where. I speculate their request would be that<br>
> > for every package that exist in the official Debian archive, the same<br>
> > package should not exist in d-m.o, unless it has a version that does<br>
> > not interfere with the official packages in "standard" Debian<br>
> > installations.<br>
><br>
> Well, I guess renaming packages, and for shared libraries changing<br>
> sonames, would be acceptable as well. Note that this has been done for<br>
> the FFmpeg library packages in the past. It turned out to be quite<br>
> some pain, but maintaing the custom soname is surely feasible.<br>
><br>
> > I understand that such an agreement gives a sort of "advantage" to<br>
> > the pkg-multimedia people over d-m.o, but that seems to be warranted<br>
> > by the fact that they are doing the official packaging, while you're<br>
> > not. If, as I hope, you could start doing your packaging work<br>
> > (wherever possible) within Debian as well, things would be different<br>
> > and we could consider solving potential technical conflicts in the<br>
> > usual Debian way.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2) You stop using "debian" as part of the domain name of your<br>
> > repository. That would allow each part to keep on doing what they<br>
> > want in terms of packaging, but at least would remove any of the<br>
> > existings doubts about the official status of d-m.o.<br>
><br>
> Maybe add a reference to<br>
> <a href="http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660924#20">http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=660924#20</a> here?<br>
><br>
> > I can imagine that would be a painful step for you to take, given the<br>
> > well established domain name. But it seems fair to ask you to do so<br>
> > if we couldn't manage to find an agreement between you and the<br>
> > official Debian packaging initiative of software you're maintaining<br>
> > in an unofficial repository.<br>
> ><br>
> > I hope we can reach an agreement on (some variants of) point (1). I'm<br>
> > personally convinced d-m.o could offer a very useful service to Debian<br>
> > users, for packages that are not part of the official archive. But d-m.o<br>
> > really needs to do so in a way that doesn't get in the way of official<br>
> > packaging activities, otherwise it will remain a perennial source of<br>
> > conflicts, to the detriment of both parties.<br>
> ><br>
> > What do you think?<br>
> ><br>
> > Cheers.<br>
> ><br>
> > PS we really want this discussion to be public, so please keep the<br>
> > pkg-multimedia-maintainers list Cc:-ed, as requested with my M-F-T<br>
> > header. I'll otherwise take the liberty to forward your replies to<br>
> > the list myself.<br>
><br>
> Thanks for this draft, I think it is really a step forward. I'm<br>
> curious if and and how Christian responds.<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> regards,<br>
> Reinhard<br>
</p>