Comment 14 for bug 1212481

Micah,

I noticed the 1.4.0 package in Debian, and it seems like some of my packaging work played into it (so I'm glad that my work was perhaps useful there too).

However, I'd argue the at this point merging from Debian is pedantic and provides no benefit to Ubuntu users. There is precious little time till Saucy is released, and I can either spend that time further testing and perfecting my current package, or doing lots tedious merging and conflict resolution.

I'd also argue that my package is currently in a much higher quality state than the Debian 1.4.0-3 package:

1) I run the upstream unit tests during the build, the Debian package doesn't

2) In the first two 1.4.0 revs of the Debian package, the CouchDB system daemon wouldn't even start, which suggests to me it's not being tested very thoroughly:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721322

3) My package has been verified by successfully building several reverse-dependency against it in the unforgiving Ubuntu build environment... reverse-dependencies with extensive, demanding CouchDB unit tests

4) I've extensively tested the 1.2.0 to 1.4.0 upgrade on Ubuntu in many scenarios (the only problem I found was that sometimes the 1.2.0 system daemon doesn't actually get killed, because the upstream init.d script is just kinda broken, despite several loving patches from the Debian maintainer... which is why I feel moving to Upstart is very important for the Ubuntu package).

I have no problem working with the Debian maintainer to get the Debian and Ubuntu packages closer over time, ideally to reach a point where we're using the exact same package (well, aside from Upstart, obviously that doesn't apply in Debian).

But I strongly feel the time to do that is not now, two days after the feature freeze. That's something to work on for 14.04 LTS.