4 ms·

Same deal with Ubuntu and Debian. One is the upstream of the other so I don’t really get the point.

• dralley 5y ago
  There is a difference (which the author points out) but I still don't really see the problem. In this particular instance, yes, a change was upstreamed that should not have been upstreamed. But upstreaming changes in general is a good thing, so when the author says > (This situation isn't the same as Debian and Ubuntu. Ubuntu uses Debian's packaging work, but Ubuntu's changes for their own needs don't automatically wind up in Debian.) I'm not sure I'm convinced that this is an unmitigated positive thing.
• tyingq 5y ago
  The problem is roughly that there's a circular thing going on where some downstream changes become upstream ones. It resulted in this problem for the person writing the post: https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/DKMSBuiltForWrongKernel https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/DKMSBuiltForW... Your comparison is mentioned specifically: "This situation isn't the same as Debian and Ubuntu. Ubuntu uses Debian's packaging work, but Ubuntu's changes for their own needs don't automatically wind up in Debian"
  • geofft 5y ago
    But the author is wrong about that and 'gabereiser is correct - Ubuntu has been trying to push changes in to Debian, and in some cases that involves pushing Ubuntu-specific conditionals into the Debian git repo (especially when the same people maintain the Debian and Ubuntu packages). See for instance the GCC packaging: https://salsa.debian.org/search?search=Ubuntu&group_id=4586&project_id=31247 https://salsa.debian.org/search?search=Ubuntu&group_id=4586&...
    • gabereiser 5y ago
      I remember as early as last year pulling deb sources and they were full of Ubuntu-isms in a Debian tree. So it’s exactly the same.