<p>On May 3, 2012 9:24 AM, "Stefano Zacchiroli" <<a href="mailto:leader@debian.org">leader@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:26:27PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:<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>
> > I'd appreciate your feedback on it.<br>
><br>
> I've now patched my first draft trying to take into account your<br>
> feedback without changing the substance of the message I think we should<br>
> send through. The new draft is attached.<br>
><br>
> You're feedback is, again, very welcome.<br>
> If you have no further changes to suggest or objections, I can send it<br>
> this week-end.<br>
><br>
> Either way, please let me know,<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, 3 May 2012 15:22:49 +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 to<br>
> users, but also for the apparent waste of maintenance energies. Energies<br>
> that could be put into better use if you and the pkg-multimedia team<br>
> could find a way to collaborate, and to do so contributing to the<br>
> *official* Debian packaging of the concerned software.<br>
><br>
> 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. One way to settle would be that for<br>
> 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. Another way would be to rename packages and sonames.<br>
><br>
> I understand that such agreements would give 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, which is confusing for users (e.g. [2,3]). That would<br>
> allow each part to keep on doing what they want in terms of<br>
> packaging, but at least would remove any of the existings doubts<br>
> about the official status of d-m.o.<br>
><br>
> [2] <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><br>
> [3] <a href="http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668308#47">http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=668308#47</a><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>
> We could also consider various in-between solutions, such as adding<br>
> suitable prominent disclaimers on your website explaining that your<br>
> initiative is not affiliated with the Debian Project, that it might<br>
> cause technical incompatibilities with official packages, and that the<br>
> donations you're collecting are for you personally and not for the<br>
> Debian Project.<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>
> 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>
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org">pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers">http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers</a></p>
<p>This is fine. Thank you.</p>
<p>~ Andres</p>