Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #100995

Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :(

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi,

11/08/2021 16:08, Vincent Bernat :
> I think we have more systemic issues. I am quite impressed how Nix/NixOS
> is able to pull so many packages and modules with so few people. But
> they use only one workflow, one way to package, one init system, etc.
> Looking at Arch, one workflow, one way to package, one init system, etc.
> Looking at Fedora, one workflow, one way to package, one init system.

I think this is a major point. I am a new Debian contributor after a
good time of ArchLinux PKGBUILD writing. I find Debian technically
superior on the packaging side, and would not trade it for PKGBUILD. But
there are so many ways to do things. After a lot of exploration, I have
found that the tooling that I was the most comfortable with was:

  * Salsa VCS
  * GBP for git + patching (+ DEP-conformant branch names)
  * dh

However there are so many other ways to do things. Some packages are not
on Salsa. Some packages use manually generated diff files. Different
branch names everywhere (debian/latest vs. debian/master vs.
debian/unstable vs. master…). I think progressive enforcing of a
workflow would help new maintainers to not be lost in the packaging jungle.

> I still trust Debian to be the most technically excellent distribution,
> but that's not all it makes to stay relevant. My point is that it would
> help to reduce the technical liberties we take in Debian. However, I
> don't think that's who we are.

Maintainers like their freedoms, but enforcing some tools at some point
could make it easier for everyone to contribute and not relearn the
packaging process for every package, because currently every package is
different. We are getting there by looking at the number of "3.0
(quilt)" packages and "dh" usage, but when a package does not conform to
this norm, it triggers a mental freeze on my side (and I want to migrate
it all to dh/3.0 quilt etc.).

> Let me take again the example with Nix. Anyone can do a simple pull
> request and gets its change accepted. Each package has a maintainer, but
> the ownership is quite weak. The maintainer may say no, but if they are
> just busy, someone else may merge the change if it looks reasonable.
Maybe the interface helps too. With a single repository, everyone can
see every pull request easily. For Debian you would have to monitor all
repositories/bugs for NMUs waiting.

> In Debian, we have many workflow (BTS, MR to submit changes, Git, not
> Git, Git workflow 1, Git workflow 2, Git workflow 3), many ways to
> package (just one makefile, old debhelper, new dh), many init systems.
> And the ownership problem prevents people to help from time to time.
> There are so many packages I come accross that could just be updated to
> a more recent version and looks like semi-abandoned but I just don't try
> any more because there are so many ways to fail.
To me the problem is not to do the technical migration, but to make it
acceptable to the current maintainer that will usually not want to
change their workflow — or not answer at all. One issue is that you
cannot repack everything and propose a NMU, because it is a major
change. So what do? Apart from RFS or co-maintaining, I do not know how
I can help "modernize" these packages. If I propose it as a .patch in a
bug and it is refused because the maintainers "does not like 3.0
(quilt)", I have lost a good chunk of time.
> Today, it is very difficult to only use Debian own packages. We just
> tell people "just add random repositories". Nix and Arch are able to
> have almost everything packaged. Nix is able to include into a single
> workflow most other language ecosystems.

We could have the same in Debian, but the constraints of "build from
source" and lack of interest for "contrib" and "non-free" channels is in
my opinion severely limiting the number of available packages. AUR
contains many packages that are not open-source nor built from source,
but users are happily using them when they want to.

For example for Spotify or VS Code (or many other external, sometimes
proprietary tools) you need to add an external repository. While on Arch
I guess you would use AUR. Why could not we use "contrib"/"non-free" for
the same purpose?

In the fonts team, it is increasingly complicated to build fonts from
source because they use so many javascript dependencies. I could propose
to ship the final .ttf/otf fonts into "contrib" instead. But given the
review duration for getting into "main", I guess "contrib" and
"non-free" are worse in terms of given attention.

Looking forward to pursue the discussion.

Best regards,

Romain.

Back to linux.debian.devel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Samuel Henrique <samueloph@debian.org> - 2021-07-17 14:50 +0200
  Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-07-17 16:00 +0200
  Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org> - 2021-07-17 17:20 +0200
    Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2021-08-10 19:40 +0200
      Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2021-08-10 19:40 +0200
        Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-08-11 03:00 +0200
          Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Calum McConnell <calumlikesapplepie@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 07:10 +0200
            Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2021-08-11 08:50 +0200
              Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2021-08-11 11:40 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2021-08-11 16:10 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> - 2021-08-11 18:10 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Timothy M Butterworth <timothy.m.butterworth@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 05:30 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-08-12 06:50 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2021-08-14 08:50 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> - 2021-08-14 09:20 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2021-08-16 16:30 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Romain Porte <debian@microjoe.org> - 2021-08-12 16:40 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2021-08-12 23:10 +0200
                Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> - 2021-08-13 00:00 +0200
                git workflows (was: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad  news for Debian :() Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2021-08-13 00:40 +0200
                Re: git workflows (was: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad  news for Debian :() Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2021-08-14 09:00 +0200
                Re: git workflows (was: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad  news for Debian :() Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2021-08-15 07:10 +0200
  Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( "Thaddeus H. Black" <thb@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 02:20 +0200
  Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 03:00 +0200
    Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2021-07-18 10:40 +0200
      Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 04:30 +0200
        Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian :( Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 22:30 +0200
  Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian? Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2021-07-19 23:40 +0200
    Re: Steam Deck: good news for Linux gaming, bad news for Debian? Samuel Henrique <samueloph@debian.org> - 2021-07-20 00:30 +0200

csiph-web