Re: [OT] lazy maintainers
On 08 Aug 2001 22:24:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The developer's reference isn't policy. ``It contains ... generally
> agreed upon best practices.'' Personally, I think it empahsises the
> wrong things about NMUs, but whatever.
hrm, you're right about this. i still don't see any special
circumstances that gives any real cause to divert from it
personally i agree with the devel's reference on the point... although
it would appear that alot of people disagree with me, so that could
quantify "generally agreed upon best practices"... but i don't want it
> All this talk of rights and duties is really way off track. If you
> can see your way to improving Debian, you should just do it. Just try
> not to get in the way of other people doing what they can (like, say,
> Darren appears to have done to Aaron by telling him not do do NMUs, or,
> like, say, telling the maintainer that you're about to NMU one of his
> packages because such-n-such a bug needs fixing).
i think that just about sums it up. imho kitame's move constitutes
running over someone else's work, though.
> > > IMO, it's sitting on a package and doing nothing with it that is evil.
> > Myth isn't sitting on any package, he's developing a package. Not
> > uploading a suboptimal package is not evil.
> A suboptimal package has already been uploaded. Myth may not be able
> or willing to make any improvements on it right now, but Kitame appears
> to be able to. As long as Kitame's not going to screw up Myth's future
> uploads, why shouldn't Kitame upload? Who exactly loses out?
Except that Myth is able and willing to make improvements, and is doing
so; he just hasn't uploaded them, which is his decision... at least as
long as it doesn't screw a release all to hell.
> > FTP masters probably would not so much agree with this; and I'm glad,
> > because I also disagree with it. It's basically hijacking the package
> > and sticking a different name on it, with the added bonus of creating
> > problems. The debian constitution gives debian developers the right to
> > make technical and non-technical decisions regarding their work.
> mozilla.deb would be Myth's work in this case, and mozilla-kitame
> Kitame's. Changes to one wouldn't anything to do with the maintainer
> of the other. The reason not to do it is because it detracts from
> the user's experience (much like, hypothetically speaking, separating
> the packages related to a particular desktop onto a different server
> somewhere would), because it bloats the archive (affecting the amount of
> money donors have to spend on bandwidth and disk space to host mirrors),
> and because, technically, it's completely redundant.
Sounds nice, but I wouldn't really like someone packaging the same
software as me and uploading it as package-foo simply because they
didn't like the way I did things. If this were to happen despite my
objections and nothing was done about it, I would probably be
indescribably pissed off, assuming I had been working hard on the
Sure is nice being out of flame-mode for a change :)
GPG Key ID: DF 28 CD 64
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS/C d+(-)>-- s:+ a18 C++++$ UL++++>$ P+>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ o? K-
M-- V-- !PS !PE Y PGP- t+ 5-- X R-- tv- b+ DI>+ !D G e>++(>+++) h-- r*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------