Re: Bug#192869: surfraw: surprized you added so many commands to /usr/bin
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 10:06:55AM +0200, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 01:13:49PM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> ...
> > Okay, I can see that a lot of commands might be desirable here, but there
> > are a LOT of these with VERY generic names. "ask", "fast", "rhyme", "cite",
> > etc.
>
> Which solutions are you suggesting?
>
The main one I think is good is having a /usr/bin/surfraw/ or similar that
users can add to their $PATH, or alias on a case by case basis as they prefer.
Properly documented and executed, I believe this to be the most robust
solution (certainly better than pre (or post) fixing "sr" to all the
binaries).
> > The package seems to be effectively unusable at the moment (see bug #200164)
> > and looks effectively unmaintained to me (no upload in over a year, and no
> > buglog entries from the maintainer in that long that I can find.)
>
> I know...
Why not? There really are bloody *trivial* bugs to fix there! The patch to
fix #200164 (a critical bug!) is about 2 lines! Even if you didn't have the
skill to do it yourself, why isn't it tagged help?
My skill with shell isn't up to quickly finding a fix for that bug, but it
took me roughly 5 minutes to find someone (thanks to Jeff Bailey) who DID
have the required skill. It took him about 10 minutes to find the bug and
come up with a patch. This isn't a huge amount of work IMO.
I'm sorry, but even if you are around, it seriously looks like this package
is unmaintained. Please convince me otherwise.
It's not unreasonable for you to not have much time, that's fine. But if
you don't have time to take care of a package, then pass it on. There are
(at least) 3 other people who DO have time and who are willing to invest it
in this package who have stepped forward to say they'd like it. If you
don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves, why haven't you
filed an RFA?
>
> > So, the solutions I am considering are:
> >
> > 1: I hijack/adopt this package, clean it up, reduce the namespace pollution
> > by making each command an argument to just ONE command, and generally
> > making the package fit for use.
> >
> > 2: Filing for its removal on the basis of the extreme pollution and lack of
> > maintenance.
> >
> >
> > It looks like it needs a LOT of work to achieve 1, so I'll probably go for 2
> > unless someone steps forward to take it on, since my current Debian time is
> > very limited :(
>
> Time is the main problem for my lack of work on it... maybe we can share
> time of several people to work on it, I think it's a very useful
> package... if it works correctly, as you say. :)
The names and emails of the 3 people who want to work should be in this
buglog I think. If you are interested, then maybe YOU could coordinate
that? It's (nominally) still your package after all!
>
> > Since there really are a lot of *trivial* to fix bugs, that have been lying
> > around for a year, I'd say this package was unmaintained. It looks to me
> > like it could be a very useful package though. If someone in the NM queue
> > for example had the time to take this, then I'd be happy to sponsor uploads
> > for them indefinitely.
>
> Ok.
***NO***. This is fucking NOT OKAY!
If you want to be treated as not-MIA then you fucking well need to get up
off your arse to coordinate and sponsor those uploads yourself. If I have
to sponsor them, I'll put whoever is doing the work into the Maintainer
field.
>
> > Of course, all of this assumes that Christian Surchi <csurchi@debian.org> is
> > in fact MIA and/or no longer interested in the package. He will be CCd
> > because this mail is going to the buglog, and if he steps forward, cleans up
> > his package, and does something about the namespace pollution, I'll be
> > happy. If not then I'll either hijack it, adopt it, or file for removal.
>
> I'm not MIA and I hope we can find people that can work on the package
> and if possibile develop and maintain "plugins", because there is no
> upstream release from so many time... I want to avoid its removal.
Well, fine, off you go. Find them!
It took less than a day for three people to step forward who are all willing
to work on and care for this package. You've yet to show me any evidence
that YOU are willing to.
>
> > CCing -devel because I'm *bloody* pissed off, and I'd like to give people
> > the chance to flame/give me reasons not to do this. hijacking someone elses
> > package isn't a thing to take lightly, no matter how poor a job they appear
> > to be doing of it to me.
>
> I think hijacking is useful when maintainer is MIA... I'm not MIA, you
> can see mails and activities related to me. :) Now "asking" is better
> ,IMHO. :)
>
When you look like you are maintaining it, that's true.
Since you don't, then I'd say it's still valid to be hijacked.
Please note this isn't a personal thing at all.
*ALL* it would take for me to be happy for you to keep this package is for
you to make an upload fixing the long standing and (mostly) easy to fix bugs
that it has. If you can't/won't do that, then fine. Let somone who wants
to do it have the package.
I know what it's like to not have much time for Debian work. I have very
little of it myself (which is why I have so few packages). This isn't an
excuse for neglecting what you have though. If you don't have time, then
fine, give the package away to someone who does.
Cheers,
Stephen
Reply to: