On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 14:05 +0530, Aanjhan R wrote: > Hi Neil! > > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote: > > Debian has systems that alert the maintainer to new releases, so Ernesto > > will have had a reminder already from DEHS. Not every upstream release > > needs a "Package the new version" bug report. > > Why not if it contains couple of important bugfixes? It would help if such bug reports detail the important bug fixes that are relevant. There are no outstanding bugs in the Debian package besides yours at this time. There is no harm in wishlist bugs for new upstream releases but without an explanation of why this release needs to be updated more urgently than the maintainer would otherwise do, I see no point in the wishlist bug. He will have received a prompt from within Debian and your bug report added no significant information to the content of that prompt. Feel free to detail the improvements in the new release, or at least link to the upstream page that details the improvements, in the bug report itself. Wherever possible, the improvements that are specific or especially related to Debian should be highlighted - but as no-one has reported any other bugs, that list is likely to be short/empty. > > gnusim8085 is not your package. It is not up to you to prepare an upload > > of the package - you also did not need to attach the entire .orig.tar.gz > > to the bug report, there are ways for the maintainer to obtain the > > updated .orig.tar.gz without mailbombing the BTS. > > I sincerely apologise for bombing the BTS. Will not happen again. Acknowledged. > > You cannot. You have filed the bug, that is an end to it. You have sent > > a half-megabyte mailbomb to the maintainer (for which you should > > sincerely apologise in the bug report IMHO). You now have to wait for > > the maintainer to respond or give sufficient reason to request a hijack > > of the package. Your mistakes with the initial bug report would appear > > to disqualify you as a suitable replacement maintainer of the Debian > > package, IMHO, so a hijack is out of the question unless you can find > > someone who has a clue about Debian packaging. > > Well if you had thought hijacking the packaging, becoming a > replacement maintainer was my aim, You are WRONG! I am one of upstream > developers of this project and well I thought it makes things easier > if I could help the maintainers by packaging the software also. This too could have been included in the bug report. Actually, Debian has had one or two problems with over-eager upstream teams pushing for their updates to be included in Debian. Sometimes upstream have unrealistic expectations of how quickly Debian can update packages after upstream releases. It is all the more important, therefore, that such bug reports clearly explain why the upload should be made in what is a release-phase in Debian. I am upstream for several packages in Debian - some have Debian bugs, some do not but even if I make an upstream release of those packages, I am unlikely to upload them to Debian until after the Lenny release in order to not cause delays in the release itself. This package might or might not be relevant to a current or pending Debian transition (I haven't looked) but please take into account that such factors do exist for many packages at this time and that wishlist bugs seeking a more urgent upload should indicate the nature of the improvements so that if the maintainer is unresponsive, someone else can consider uploading the new release as an NMU. (To do so, the improvements would have to be fixes for bugs that would be of "serious" severity or higher in Debian in most cases.) > My aim > is not to do any of the above you have stated. My aim is just to > enable all users of Debian to get the latest of software (atleast the > ones, which I have had troubles with Debian having old software) and > everybody enjoy using Debian and its based distros. Even becoming a > Debian developer is next to the above statement for me. OK. None of that was evident from the initial bug report - more content in the original message would have been appreciated, especially before escalating the issue to debian-mentors. > > This has to be a new low for debian-mentors. Sigh. > > I am disappointed with such a remark from the debian "mentors" list > and thanks for making me get better. I will remember not to upload the > .orig to the Debian BTS ever. Thanks for that. Learning by Experience > is always better :-) True, but I am saddened that you didn't notice this problem yourself - especially as you are upstream. After all, you must have systems upstream for making the tarball available for download - and not just for Debian/Ubuntu. IMHO my response was justified by the abuse of the BTS - you have now apologised for that and I will make no further comment on it. Please take a little more time over your bug reports in future and include more content, especially content that is obvious to you (as upstream) but not to others (like the mentors list). -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part