From aa46fee29447da7c46b633ecec989c9ccb69c0ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "mako@atdot.cc" <> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 16:45:34 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Added a make file and did a final personal read through of the paper. --- Makefile | 37 +++++ to_fork_or_not_to_fork.xml | 326 +++++++++++++++++++------------------ 2 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 157 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Makefile diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e87b8ff --- /dev/null +++ b/Makefile @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +#!/usr/bin/make -f + +SOURCE = to_fork_or_not_to_fork.xml +OUTPUT_STEM = to_fork_or_not_to_fork + +CURRENT_DISTRO = $(shell test -e /etc/debian_version && echo "debian") +ifeq ($(CURRENT_DISTRO),debian) + NWDBXSL = /usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/nwalsh/html/docbook.xsl +else + NWDBXSL = /usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/nwalsh/current/html/docbook.xsl +endif + +html: + xsltproc -o "$(OUTPUT_STEM).html" "$(NWDBXSL)" "$(SOURCE)" + +pdf: + xmlto fo "$(SOURCE)" + fop "$(OUTPUT_STEM).fo" "$(OUTPUT_STEM).pdf" + +build: html pdf + +viewpdf: pdf + xpdf "$(OUTPUT_STEM).pdf" + +validate: + xmllint --noout --noent "$(SOURCE)" + +# Remove the mess +clean: + rm -rf "$(OUTPUT_STEM).html" "$(OUTPUT_STEM).fo" "$(OUTPUT_STEM).pdf" + +# rm -rf ./tmp + + +# some future rules +#move: +#install: build move diff --git a/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.xml b/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.xml index 30ab53c..58241e9 100644 --- a/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.xml +++ b/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.xml @@ -23,14 +23,13 @@ Benjamin Mako Hill is an intellectual property researcher and activist and a professional Free/Open Source - Software (FOSS) advocate, developer, and consultant. He is - active participant in the Debian Project in both technical - and non-technical roles and a founder of Debian-Nonprofit - and other Free Software projects. He is the author of the - Free Software Project Management HOWTO and many published - works on Free and Open Source Software. He currently is - working full time for Canonical Ltd. on Ubuntu, a new - Debian-based distribution. + Software (FOSS) advocate and developer. He is active + participant in the Debian Project in both technical and + non-technical roles. He is the author of the Free Software + Project Management HOWTO and many published works on Free + and Open Source Software. He currently is working full time + for Canonical Ltd. on Ubuntu, a new Debian-based + distribution. @@ -41,10 +40,6 @@ - - This is where my abstract should go. - -
Introduction @@ -58,40 +53,44 @@ GNOME and KDE — and distributions like Debian. These projects are leveraging the work of thousands of - programmers — both volunteer and paid — and are producing - millions of lines of code. Their software is being used by - millions of users with a diverse set of needs. This paper - focuses on two major effects of this situation: + programmers — both volunteer and paid — and are + producing millions of lines of code. Their software is being + used by millions of users with a diverse set of needs. This + paper focuses on two major effects of this situation: - The communities that free software projects — and in - particular large projects — serve are increasingly diverse. - It is becoming increasingly difficult for a single large - project to release any single product that can cater to all - of its potential users. + + The communities that free software projects — and + in particular large projects — serve are increasingly + diverse. It is becoming increasingly difficult for a single + large project to release any single product that can cater + to all of its potential users. + + It's becoming increasingly difficult to reproduce these large projects. While reproducing entire project is impossible for small groups of hackers, it is often not substantially easier for small groups to even track and maintain a fork of a large project over time. + Taken together, these facts imply an increasingly realized free software community in which programmers frequently derive but where traditional forking is often untenable. "Forks," as - they are traditionally defined, will be improved upon. - Communities around large free software projects will be smarter - about the process of deriviation than they have been in the + they are traditionally defined, must be improved upon. + Communities around large free software projects must be smarter + about the process of derivation than they have been in the past. We are already seeing this with GNU/Linux distributions. New distributions are rarely built from scratch today. Instead, they adapted from and built on top of the work of existing projects. - As projects and userbases grow, these derived distributions are + As projects and user-bases grow, these derived distributions are increasingly common. Most of what I describe in this essay are tools and experiences of derived distributions. @@ -127,9 +126,9 @@ such, it is highly focused on the experience of the Ubuntu project and it's existence as a derived Debian distribution. It also pulls from my experience with Debian-NP and the Custom - Debian Distribution (CDD) community. Since I am active member of - both the Ubuntu and Debian-NP projects, these are areas that I - can discuss with some degree of knowlege and experience. + Debian Distribution (CDD) community. Since I participate in both + the Ubuntu and CDD projects, these are areas that I can discuss + with some degree of knowledge and experience.
@@ -143,14 +142,14 @@ GNU Emacs and XEmacs. This schism persists to this day. Some forks, like Emacs and XEmacs, are permanent. Others are - relatively sort lived. An example of this is the GCC project + relatively short lived. An example of this is the GCC project which saw two forks — EGCS and PGCC — that both eventually merged back into GCC. Forking can happen for any number of reasons. Often developers on a project develop political or personal differences that keep them from continuing to work together. In some cases, maintainers become unresponsive and other developers on the project fork the project to keep the - project alive in some form. + project alive. Ultimately though, most forks occur because people do not agree on the features, the mechanisms, or the technology at the @@ -163,12 +162,12 @@ — or even primarily — technical. Many projects create "branches." Branches are alternative version of a piece of software used to experiment with intrusive or unstable features - and bug fixes. Forks are distinguished from branches both in + and fixes. Forks are distinguished from branches both in that they are often more significant departures from a technical perspective (i.e., more lines of code have been changed and/or the changes are more invasive or represent a more fundamental rethinking of the problem) and in that they are bifurcations - defined in social terms. Branches involve a + defined in social and political terms. Branches involve a single developer or community of developers — even if it does boil down to distinct subgroups within a community — whereas forks are separate projects. @@ -210,17 +209,16 @@ maintainers to work out solutions that keep the fork from happening in the first place. - Before moving on, it is worth pointing out that fork is - something of a contested term. Because definitions of forks - involve, to one degree or another, statements about the - political, organization, and technical distinctions between - projects, bifurcations that many people call branches or - parallel trees are described as others as forks. Recently, - fueled by the advent of distributed version control systems, the - definition of what is and is not a fork has becoming - increasingly unclear. In part due to the same systems, the - benefits and drawbacks of what is increasingly problematically - called forking is equally debatable. + Finally, it is worth pointing out that fork is something of + a contested term. Because definitions of forks involve, to one + degree or another, statements about the political, organization, + and technical distinctions between projects, bifurcations that + many people call branches or parallel trees are described as + others as forks. Recently, fueled by the advent of distributed + version control systems, the definition of what is and is not a + fork has become increasingly unclear. In part due to the same + systems, the benefits and drawbacks of what is increasingly + problematically called forking is equally debatable.
@@ -239,15 +237,15 @@
The Debian Project - The Debian project is a the largest, in terms of both code + The Debian project is my counts the largest, in terms of both code and volunteers, free software distribution. It is the also, arguably, the largest free software project in terms of the number of volunteers. Debian includes more than 15,000 packages and the work of well over 1,000 official volunteers - and many more contributors without official membership status. + and many more contributors without official membership. Projects without Debian's massive volunteer base cannot replicate what Debian has accomplished; they can rarely hope - to even maintain what Debian currently has separately. + to even maintain what Debian currently has. At the time that this paper was written, Distrowatch lists 129 distributions based on Debian @@ -255,8 +253,8 @@ here: http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=independence - — most of them currently active to one degree or - another. Each distribution represents at least one person — + — most of them currently active to varying + degrees. Each distribution represents at least one person — and in most cases a community of people — who disagreed with Debian's vision or direction strongly enough to want to create a new distribution and who had the @@ -265,11 +263,11 @@ system" — the fact that the Debian project has become the fastest growing operating system while spawning so many derivatives is testament to the fact that, as far as software - is concerned, one size does not fit + is concerned, one size can not fit all. Netcraft posts yearly updates on the speed at which Linux distributions are growing. The one in question can - be found at http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/01/28/debian_fastest_growing_linux_distribution.html @@ -282,10 +280,11 @@ customizing and deriving from Debian for specific groups of users including non-profit organization, the medical community, lawyers, children and many others. - I have spearheaded and built a derivation of Debian - called Debian-Nonprofit (Debian-NP) geared for non-profit - organizations working within the Debian project. - These projects build on the core distribution and + I spearheaded and help build a now mostly defuct + derivation of Debian called Debian-Nonprofit (Debian-NP) + geared for non-profit organizations by working within the + Debian project. + These projects build on the core Debian distribution and the canonical archive from within the organizational and political limits of the Debian project and constantly seek to minimize the delta by focusing on less @@ -313,8 +312,8 @@ Ubuntu The Ubuntu project was started by Mark Shuttleworth in - April 2004 and the first version was executed almost entirely - by a small group of a Debian developers by Shuttleworth's + April 2004 and the first version was built almost entirely + by a small group of a Debian developers employed by Shuttleworth's company Canonical Limited. Information Ubuntu can be found on the Ubuntu homepage. @@ -349,7 +348,7 @@ project that aims to derive from Debian to an extensive degree. Ubuntu made code-level changes to nearly 1300 packages in Debian at the time that this paper was written and the - speed of changes will only accelerate with time; the total + speed of changes will not decelerate with time; the total number of changes and the total size of the delta will grow. Scott James Remnant maintains a list of these patches @@ -361,7 +360,7 @@ That said, the Ubuntu project is explicit about the fact that it could not exist with the work done by the Debian project before Ubuntu was created. - You can see that explicit statement on Ubunut's + You can see that explicit statement on Ubuntu's website here: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/ More importantly, Ubutnu explains that it cannot @@ -410,7 +409,7 @@ That's why from the very first day we started fixing bugs we began sending the - patches_ back to Debian through the BTS. Not only + patches back to Debian through the BTS. Not only will it make our job so much easier when we come to freeze for "hoary", our next release, but it's exactly what every derivative should do in the first place. @@ -420,22 +419,35 @@ There is some debate on the degree to which Ubuntu developers have succeeded in accomplishing the goals laid out by Remnant. Ubuntu has filed hundreds of patches in the bug - tracking system although it has often run into problems in - deciding what constitutes something that - should be fed back to Debian. Many changes are simply not - relevant to upstream Debian developers. For example, they may - include changes to a package in response to another change - made in another package in Ubuntu that will not or has not - been taken by Debian. + tracking system but it has also run into problems in deciding + what constitutes something that should be + fed back to Debian. Many changes are simply not relevant to + Debian developers. For example, they may include changes to a + package in response to another change made in another package + in Ubuntu that will not or has not been taken by Debian. In + many other cases, the best action in regards to a particular + change, a particular package, and a particular upstream Debian + developer is simply unclear. The Ubuntu project's track record in working - constructively with Debian is, at the moment, decidedly mixed. + constructively with Debian is, at the moment, a mixed one. While an increasingly large number of Debian developers are maintaining their packages actively within both projects, many in both Debian and Ubuntu feel that Ubuntu has work left to do - in living up to its own goals of a smooth productive + in living up to its own goal of a completely smooth productive relationship with Debian. + That said, the importance of the goals described by + Remnant in the context of of the Ubuntu development model + cannot be overstated. Ever line of delta between Debian and + Ubuntu has a cost for Ubuntu developers. Technology, social + practices, and wise choices may reduce the cost but it cannot + eliminate it. The resources that Ubuntu can bring to bear upon + the problem of building a distribution are limited — far + more limited than Debian's. As a result, there is a limit to + how far Ubuntu can diverge; it is always in Ubuntu's advantage + to minimize the delta where possible. +
@@ -476,22 +488,24 @@ development within an ecosystem of software development working on related projects. The result is that free software projects will gain a competitive advantage over propriety - software projecrts through their ability to better serve the + software projects through their ability to better serve the increasingly diverse needs of increasingly large and - increasingly diverse user-bases. More projects will derive and - less redundant code will be written. + increasingly diverse user-bases. Although it sounds + paradoxical today, more projects will derive and less + redundant code will be written. Projects more limited in code and scope may use the tools - and methods in different combinations, in different ways, and - to different degrees than the examples around distributions - introduced here. Different projects with different needs will - find that certain solutions work better than others. Because - communities of the size of Debian are difficult to fork in a - way that is beneficial to any party, it is in these - communities that the technology and development methodologies - will are first emerging. With time, these strategies and tools - will find themselves employed productively in a wide variety - of projects with a broad spectrum of sizes, needs, scopes and + and methods described in the remainder of this paper in + different combinations, in different ways, and to different + degrees than the examples around distributions introduced + here. Different projects with different needs will find that + certain solutions work better than others. Because communities + of the size of Debian are difficult to fork in a way that is + beneficial to any party, it is in these communities that the + technology and development methodologies are first + emerging. With time, these strategies and tools will find + themselves employed productively in a wide variety of projects + with a broad spectrum of sizes, needs, scopes and descriptions.
@@ -507,7 +521,7 @@ The easiest step in creating a productive derivative software project is to break down the problems of deriviations into a series of different classes of modification. Certain - types of modification is more easily done and are + types of modification are more easily done and are intrinsically more maintainable. In the context of distributions, the problem of derivation @@ -518,7 +532,7 @@ - Selection of individual pieces of software;a + Selection of individual pieces of software; Changes to the way that packages are installed or run @@ -539,7 +553,7 @@ energy on the less intrusive problems first. The first area that Ubuntu focused on was selecting a - subset of package that Ubuntu would support. Ubuntu selected + subset of packages that Ubuntu would support. Ubuntu selected and supports approximate 2,000 packages. These became the main component in Ubuntu. Other packages in Debian were included in a separate section of the Ubuntu @@ -549,13 +563,14 @@ able to select a maintainable subsection of the Debian archive that they could maintain over time. - The most simple derived distributions — often working - within the Debian project as CDDs but also including projects - like Userlinux — are merely lists of packages and do nothing - outside of package selection. The installation of lists of - packages and the maintenance of those lists over time can be - aided through the creation of what are called "metapackages:" - empty packages that are maintained over time. + The most simple derived distributions — often + working within the Debian project as CDDs but also including + projects like Userlinux — are merely lists of packages + and do nothing outside of package selection. The installation + of lists of packages and the maintenance of those lists over + time can be aided through the creation of what are called + metapackages: empty packages with long + lists of "dependencies" that are maintained over time. The second item, configuration changes, are also relatively low-impact. Focusing on moving as many changes as @@ -565,17 +580,16 @@ actively. Their idea is that rather than forking a piece of code due to disagreement in how the program should work, they can leave the code intact but add the - ability to work in a different way. This - alternate functionality is made toggleable through a - configuration change of the distribution in much the same that - applications can be configured differently or shipped with - different configuration files. Since the Debian project has a - unified package configuration framework called Debconf, - derivers are able to configure an entire system in aa highly - centralized manner. - More information on Debconf can be found online at: - http://www.kitenet.net/programs/debconf/ + ability to work in a different way to the + software. This alternate functionality is made toggleable + through a configuration change in the same manner that + applications are configured through questions asked at install + time. Since the Debian project has a unified package + configuration framework called Debconf, derivers are able to + configure an entire system in a highly centralized + manner. More information on Debconf can be + found online at: http://www.kitenet.net/programs/debconf/ This is not unlike RedHat's Kickstart although the emphasis is on maintenance of those configuration changes over the life and evolution of the package; Kickstart is focused @@ -583,16 +597,14 @@ A third type of configuration is limited to changes in the environment through which a system is run or installed. One is - example is Progeny's Anaconda-based Debian installer provides - which an alternate installer but installs an identical system. - Another example is the Knoppix project is famous for its Live - CD environments. - In reality, Knoppix makes a wide range of changes to a - default Debian installation that spam all items in my list - above. - Other Live CD projects, including Ubuntu's - Casper project, are purely a different - way of running the exact same code. + example is Progeny's Anaconda-based Debian installer which + provides an alternate installer but results in an identical + system. Another example is the Knoppix project which is famous + for its "Live CD" environments. While, Knoppix makes a wide + range of invasive changes that span all items in my list + above, other Live CD projects, including Ubuntu's "Casper" + project, are much closer to alternative environments through + which the same code is run. Because these three methods are relatively non-invasive, they are reasonable strategies for small teams and individuals @@ -600,10 +612,10 @@ desirable changes — and in the case of some derived distributions, most desirable changes — require more invasive changes. The final and most invasive type of change - — changes to code — is the most difficult but also the most - promising and powerful if solved. Changes of this type involve - bifurcations of the code-base and will be the topic of the - remainder of this paper. + — changes to code — is the most difficult but also + the most promising and powerful if it can be done sustainably. + Changes of this type involve bifurcations of the code-base and + will be the topic of the remainder of this paper. @@ -629,7 +641,7 @@ bugs in the stable primary branch, and then ultimately replacing the stable release with the development release. The CVS model is not geared toward a system - where an arbitrary delta, or sets of deltas, is maintained + where an arbitrary delta, or sets of deltas, are maintained over time. Distributed version control aims to solve a number of @@ -648,7 +660,7 @@ Ultimately, this requires tools that are better at merging changes and in not merging certain - changes when that is desirable. It also leads to tools capable + changes when that is the desired behavior. It also leads to tools capable of history-sensitive merging. The most famous switch to a distributed VCS model from a @@ -679,7 +691,7 @@ temporary replacement for BitKeeper) and others. Each of these tools, at least after they reach a certain - level of maturity, allow or will allow its users to develop + level of maturity, allow or will allow users to develop software in a distributed fashion and to, over time, compare their software and pull changes from others significantly more easily than they could otherwise. The idea of parallel @@ -726,26 +738,26 @@ maintaining difference between packages. Because packages are usually distributed as a source file with a collection of one or more patches, this introduces the unique possibility of - creating a limited high-level VCS system based on this - fact. - - In the case of Ubuntu and Debian, he tool is creating one - branch per patch or feature and using heuristics to analyze - patch files and create these branches intelligently. The - package build system section of the total patch can also be - kept as a separate branch. Canonical's tool, called the - Hypothetical Changeset Tool (HCT) (although no longer - hypothetical), is one experimental way of creating a very - simple, very streamlined interface for dealing with a + creating a high-level VCS system based on this fact. + + In the case of Ubuntu and Debian, the ideal tool creates + one branch per patch or feature and using heuristics to + analyze patch files and create these branches + intelligently. The package build system section of the total + patch can also be kept as a separate branch. Canonical's tool, + called the Hypothetical Changeset Tool (HCT) (although no + longer hypothetical), is one experimental way of creating a + very simple, very streamlined interface for dealing with a particular type of source that is created and distributed in a particular type of way with a particular type of change. While HCT promises to be very useful for people making - derived distributions based on Debian, its wider application - may be limited. That said, this provides an example of the way - that problem and context specific tools may play an essential - role in the maintenance of derived code more generally. + derived distributions based on Debian, its application outside + distribution makers will, in all likelihood, be limited. That + said, it provides an example of the way that problem and + context specific tools may play an essential role in the + maintenance of derived code more generally. @@ -753,12 +765,12 @@
Social Solutions - It has been said that a common folly among technophiles is - based on the temptation to employ technical solutions toward + It has been said that it is a common folly of a + technophile to attempt to employ technical solutions toward solving social problems. The problem of deriving software is both a technical and a social problem and - adequately addressing the issue will require approaches that - take into consideration both type of solution. + adequately addressing the larger problems requires approaches that + take into consideration both types of solution. Scott James Remnant compares the relationship between distributions and derived distributions as not unlike the @@ -798,31 +810,31 @@ partially automated, the choice to automate this is a purely social one. - Ubuntu is still left with questions in regards to changes - that are made to packages that do not necessarily fix bugs or - that fix bugs that do not exist in Debian but may in the - future. Some Debian developers want to hear about the full - extent of changes made to their software in Ubuntu while - others do not want to be bothered. Ubuntu should continue to - work with Debian to find ways to allow developers to stay in - sync. - - There is a recent initiative by some developers in Debian, - largely led by myself, to create a stronger relationship - between the Debian project and its ecosystem of derivers. - While the form that this will ultimately take is unclear, - projects existing within an ecosystem should explore the realm - of appropriate social relationships that will ensure that they - can work together and be informed of each others' work without - resorting to "spamming" each other with irrelevant or - unnecessary information. + However, as I alluded to above, Ubuntu is still left with + questions in regards to changes that are made to packages that + do not necessarily fix bugs or that fix bugs that do not exist + in Debian but may in the future. Some Debian developers want + to hear about the full extent of changes made to their + software in Ubuntu while others do not want to be + bothered. Ubuntu should continue to work with Debian to find + ways to allow developers to stay in sync. + + There is are also several initiatives by developers in + Debian, to create a stronger relationship between the Debian + project and its ecosystem of derivers and between Ubuntu and + Debian in particular. While the form that this will ultimately + take is unclear, projects existing within an ecosystem should + explore the realm of appropriate social relationships that + will ensure that they can work together and be informed of + each others' work without resorting to "spamming" each other + with irrelevant or unnecessary information. Another issue that has recently played an important role in the Debian/Ubuntu relationship is the importance of both giving adequate credit to the authors or upstream maintainers of software without implying a closer relationship than is the case. Derivers must walk a file line where they credit others' - work on a project without implying that the others works for, + work on a project without implying that the others work for, support, or are connected to the derivers project which, for any number of reasons, the original author might not want to be associated with. -- 2.39.5