Re: [Backports-queue] Processing of qemu-kvm_0.11.1+dfsg-1~bpo50+1_amd64.changes
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:41:36 +0100
Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> wrote:
> Faidon Liambotis schrieb am Thursday, den 18. March 2010:
>
> > Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > >> qemu-kvm_0.11.1+dfsg-1~bpo50+1_amd64.changes uploaded
> > >> successfully to localhost along with the files:
> > >> qemu-kvm_0.11.1+dfsg-1~bpo50+1.dsc
> > >> qemu-kvm_0.11.1+dfsg.orig.tar.gz
> > >> qemu-kvm_0.11.1+dfsg-1~bpo50+1.diff.gz
> > >> qemu-kvm_0.11.1+dfsg-1~bpo50+1_amd64.deb
> > >> qemu-kvm-dbg_0.11.1+dfsg-1~bpo50+1_amd64.deb
> > > Hu?
> > > I'm a little bit surprised. In the past I maintained the kvm
> > > related stuff in bpo. I was currently in the testing phase of
> > > qemu-kvm and now I see somebody else uploaded it.
> > >
> > > Please don't do such things without contacting the former
> > > uploader. Its not that I'm that hard to get.
> > >
> > > Speaking as the maintainer and as ftp-master of bpo
> > Oh, I'm sorry.
> >
> > It's been over 2 months since that version was migrated to testing
> > and I didn't think you'd care. We were using this at work and I
> > decided that it's better to have it in bpo than have it in the
> > internal repository.
> >
> > Contacting the former uploader is on bpo's best practices but it's
> > on a strict rule of bpo, is it? Not that it's a bad idea, it's just
> > not always very practical.
> >
I'd love to see this formalized as a strict rule. Say, a formal
requirement would be to email the uploader (using the email address
listed in the upload), and if there's no response within 30 days,
permission is implicitly granted to maintain the backport.
I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who'd be more than
happy for someone to take over some my backports (especially the ones
that were simply build dependencies, such as pulseaudio).
Reply to: