Re: bastardizing packages or stepping down
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
06.03.2015 15:02, Sam Hartman wrote:
[]
> So, you're involving the TC because you're hoping to better understand why your unblock was not approved?
>
> How are you hoping the TC can help? Here are some options I see:
>
> * Some folks on the TC are fairly good at release engineering and have been involved in this either in Debian, for other projects or for other distributions. We could look over the situation and try to help you understand why someone might decide not to approve those unblocks. Since we weren't the one acting on the request we can give you an understanding of why someone might think that way, but not why they did.
>
> * Alternatively you could be asking for help engaging with the release team and Cyril to explain the actual reasoning involved.
>
> Or perhaps you're asking for something else.
I asked for understanding mostly. But as I wrote at the very
beginning of my first email, I don't have much hope.
This email has been sent to 3 places: d-i team who rejected busybox,
d-release team and TC, so maybe at least one party can find something
to say or do.
What I see here are 3 possible solutions to this problem. I guess I
ordered them right, starting with most unlikely but best, and ending
in most likely but worst.
a) allow current busybox to migrate from unstable to testing.
This is what I asked when filing an unblock-udeb request initially
in #771208, which was filed before jessie freeze. This is what
will make everyone happy, I think, including current people involved
with the package because there wont be any reason anymore to do the
same work twice (including making another crippled release for
jessie with unneeded-for-debian security bugfix but without needed-
for-jessie other fixes), there wont be any need anymore to bastardize
the package.
Disadvantages are none, to my view anyway, except that in this case,
people who rejected the unblock request will have to agree it was
a mistake. That, I think, is one of important points here, because
Cyril is one of them (if not the only one), and he's an important
person for the project, and no one want to make him unhappy.
But since this hasn't happened so far, and even my main questions went
unanswered this far in the release cycle, I've no hope for this.
b) someone -- be it TC, or D-I team, or the Release team, explain to
me why the changes hasn't been accepted. I asked this several times,
but always got the same answer: the changes are fixing jessie-ignore
bug and introduce uneeded-for-jessie changes for things which are now
history already (glibc bug). To which I answered initially in the
very first unblock request: the jessie-ignore thing was only because
that bug was _difficult_ to fix in time for jessie (but I did that
and I was in time), so not to introduce an RC bug which is unlikely
to be fixed, and that these changes are _needed_ for jessie, not
anything past jessie, exactly because it isn't yet history for jessie,
as buildd story demonstrates, and because fixed glibc hasn't even
been released upstream at the time -- if not for jessie users,
this helps derived distributions and in other situations, like
backporting and whatnot.
But even more: all this, which I voluntary explained, is hardly
relevant for the unblock-UDEB request, because none of the changes
in question EVER affect D-I in any way whatsoever. So I don't
really understand why an unblock-UDEB request has been denied in
a background that the changes aren't needed for jessie, BEFORE
jessie has been frozen?
And another question which I asked several times is, even if the
changes aren't exactly necessary, does it HURT any? Does the
new stuff break anything? If not, again, why to work more when
it's that simple to do less and make everyone happy?
So, basically, it'd be good to understand why. Maybe TC can help,
maybe the release team can, or maybe d-i team, I dunno.
c) lacking a) and b), I don't have any choice but to step down.
The reason is plain and simple.
I don't understand why, see b), why even such small, easy to review,
carefully selected, tested and needed changes can't be accepted,
and why my questions goes on unanswered while freeze progresses,
and why it is better to do more work _instead_ of the same work
which I already did.
Since I don't understand why my work isn't needed for debian,
and instead, debian prefers to do MORE work, I see this as I'm
not helping debian but instead disturbing its work. So I can't
continue, I don't want to make life for others harder. So I
_have_ to go. I can't even change the way I do things to make
it easier for debian, because I don't understand what is
going on so don't know the direction to change myself.
So, if c) is the only choice I have, I request that my name
be removed from all packages which, at leaat, produces udebs
(these are busybox and mdadm so far) on the next upload, and
I'm stopping maintaining these packages, because I don't know
how to do that anymore. Someone else agreed to take over
maintenance of mdadm, so it wont become orhpan. Hopefully
I'll be able to unsubscribe from the relevant mailinglists
myself ;)
Since I depend on busybox for our local stuff, I most likely
will continue to maintain this package locally as I did for
many years before, until I decided to give my work to debian.
Well, something like that, anyway. Hopefully this is more
clear than my first email.
And last but not least, once again I apologize for my harsh
tone in this story. It shouldn't be there. I was on nerves
myself for a year or so due to things unrelated to debian,
so was "touchy" myself too.
Thanks,
/mjt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU/9DVAAoJEL7lnXSkw9fbXP4H/AjFISApyjgpX+7S4Nf4BVXY
aKU0BGS1pifBhp/S0BsbtYYhEf1Pt7CfvIL5zo5QtJMnY4LQTYc2LfFMzyePsfeE
009gjwdLNHQBsm1uoxZlZzR+3fHtJMp4wybTZ7GVrAOqiHsoNS82wx/HA0JLJy6O
XKnCwAtujfnZQekCQqfZoT8H4pD60Ga29Suu2/pxMKhIR/IBPw7Qsd+Bco2sCbm2
UjpmRz10BHhzzEoCM6I0rYMK486IRwaLcZLJKIgfqOx+4ojrFn37UZMq7PwY1//D
2LPvDu+een6oCVBnvr/zB4HWf5dFH565e1aqq8o0j3QJ/Qq0Tzs8dduyDnPXLJc=
=ZiEd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: