Re: Bug#960986: RFS: fortune-zh/2.96 [ITA] -- Chinese Data files for fortune
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:30:11PM +0800, atzlinux 肖盛文 wrote:
> 属于团队维护的包，其包的遗弃、收养、转移，可以有团队内部的约定，这个应当不违反
> Debian 现有规则。
When that package got orphaned there was no such team-wise rules.
That team-wise rules is a completely new topic and not a key point here.
Let's focus on the global conventions.
> 基于团队内原有上传者曾经对软件包维护的贡献，继续保留其名字在上传者字段，不知道会有哪些问题？
By submitting the Orphan bug, it means that the original maintainer is
already removed the control file. Closing the Orphan bug without
removing the original maintainer means you are adding back the
maintainer without asking which turns to be very rude from some people's
point of view.
> 从目前现有的 Debian
> 规则来看，对团队维护这块，没有特别细化的限制条款，应该是给团队一定的自主权。团队内部达成一致就行。
I'm not object to that. Team members who has enough time and energy
should be able propose the team-wise agreements. However the fact is
that there was NO such team-wise agreements.
Why is the default conventions relentlessly ignored?
> 就这个具体实例，估计中文团队之前是没有碰到过这类问题，没有讨论过，像这种情况，遵循
> Debian 单个软件包的维护惯例，去掉上传者名字，这是没有问题的，我刚才也在 git
> 里面去掉了。
Orphan & ITA is a simple case. And the solution is as simple as removing
one line from d/control.
> "去掉上传者名字，这是没有问题的"
You replaced the concept. I have already offered reference materials
suggesting that "the original maintainers should be removed from the
maintainer list when closing the orphan bug".
Things are simple and straightforward, not equivocal.
> 如果一个团队内部所有的其它人都不愿意接手维护这个软件包，我觉得应该是先取消这个软件包的团队维护，再遗弃这个软件包到
> wnpp。
Why is the standard process deemed low-priority one compared to
subjective opinion leading by "我觉得" ?
> 目前 Debian
> 里面，中文软件包本来就比较少，后续就不要轻易删除一个包了，
> 中文团队有责任和义务维护好现有软件包，并引入更有价值的中文相关软件包。
Orphaning does not mean "removing a package". According to the developer
reference "orphan" means "the maintainer is not willing to maintain the
package any more". You misunderstood this point.
> 有很多软件包，目前上游已经不活跃，缺少维护，这类软件包在 Debian
> 里面继续维护，确实会有很多困难。
>
> 作为这个软件包新的上游，相信接下来会遇到很多挑战，我会尽力而为，有问题大家多交流，多帮助。
I'm looking forward to it as the ex-maintainer.
> 在 2020/5/20 下午12:25, Mo Zhou 写道:
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:03:00AM +0800, atzlinux 肖盛文 wrote:
> >> 已经在 git 提交。fortune-zh 这个软件包是中文团队维护的软件包，像 Uploaders
> >> 字段这类细节规则，我们团队内部是可以讨论确定。
> > Debian has its own conventions in the Maintainers/Uploaders fields and
> > there is no reason for Chinese dev team to override them.
> >
> >> 曾经的上传维护者，继续留在 Uploaders 字段，也可以，当然去掉也行。
> > Don't make such a simple fact equivocal.
> >
> > On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 05:24:02 GMT the original maintainer had changed the bug
> > into an Orphan bug from an RFA bug:
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=910181
> >
> > According to Debian policy section 3.3
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#the-maintainer-of-a-package
> > "An orphaned package is one with no current maintainer. Orphaned
> > packages should have their Maintainer control field set to Debian QA
> > Group <packages@qa.debian.org>"
> > But by convention we don't waste resources uploading the package again
> > merely dropping the maintainer from the control file.
> >
> > Plus, "Orphan" means "the maintainer can no longer maintain the package"
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#orphaning-a-package
> >
> > Further more, the original maintainer stated that they had no interest in
> > maintaining this package anymore, and was going to drop this package in #910181
> >
> > Various strong evidence indicates that the original maintainer should be
> > removed when someone else takes it over.
> >
> > The "继续留在 Uploaders 字段，也可以，当然去掉也行" statement is
> > dismissing the facts and making simple things equivocal.
> >
> >> 一个属于团队维护的软件包，原 Uploaders
> >> 不想继续维护了，优先在团队内部找人接手吧，
> > Debian has its own standard process for maintainers to drop packages:
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#orphaning-a-package
> > The original maintainer had no reason to override the community convention.
> >
> > Imposing one's opinion on the team development workflow is impractical.
> >
> >> 如果有人愿意接手，就不一定要给
> >> wnpp 发 ITO，直接内部转移即可。
>
> 我说这句话的意思，只是提到提到团队内部维护的软件包，先优先内部转移比较好。
>
> 我并没有明确到具体实例说，fortune-zh
> 这个软件包的遗弃，没有经过当时的团队内部沟通。
I meant that that package was orphaned following the standard process.
Teamwise communication is just optional.
> 2018
> 年的中文邮件列表里面，我没有印象有收到过这个软件包遗弃的事情。或者当时还有其它沟通途径交流这个事情。
There is no problem since team communication is not a part of the
STANDARD orphaning process.
> 但是从 #910181 的文字描述来看，没有提及中文团队内部无人接手的情况。
According to the debian developer reference, the maintainer does not
have to find potential adopters before filing an orphan bug.
> >
> > You dismissed the fact again. The orignal maintainer had sent the bug
> > #910181 on 3 Oct 2018. And clearly no one had intented to take that
> > over.
> > This physical world is driven by facts instead of subjective thoughts.
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, the original maintainer clearly stated the following
> > in #910181 :
> >
> > "Note, this is a native package. Adopting this package means
> > that you are going to be the new upstream."
> >
> > Just curious, are you prepared to become the new upstream, even if this
> > package cannot be more simpler?
> >
Reply to: