[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bastardizing packages or stepping down

Hash: SHA1

05.03.2015 15:08, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Adam" == Adam D Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> Adam> Hi, Making no comment on the remainder of the mail:
> Adam> On 2015-03-05 10:38, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>>> And since I can't do my work, I'm stepping down from being busybox maintainer, and am kindly asking the release team to remove my name from debian/control file in busybox, so that people don't blame me for things I can't do.
> Adam> I don't believe it would be appropriate for us to do so. We Adam> have no control or say in who maintains packages (beyond that Adam> available to any other DD or interested contributor).
> michael, I'd like to ask if I'm hearing you correctly.  So, what I'm hearing is very strong frustration.  You had hoped that you would have the power to produce a package that you'd be happy being responsible for.  However you don't believe  that you have that power; you're saying that changes you consider essential  to creating a busybox you're comfortable being responsible for are rejected.  Am I hearing you correctly?

Well.  It is not about being happy or being powerful.  It is about at least
understanding the reasons why we should take bad and have more work instead
of taking good and have peace.  This is the main source of frustration, and
this is the main question which went unanswered so far.

The main changes I've made (this build-using thing plus a build-time glibc
check) are _only_ needed for jessie, since after jessie this whole single
issue will really be history, while for jessie it isn't history yet, like
a story with buildds demonstrating.

Another source of frustration is the fact that all the changes in question
does not break things, it does not hurt anyone, and especially does not affect
the D-I in any way whatsoever, but are being rejected on the D-I side.

Another frustration comes because much more intrusive but much less needed
changes are being happily accepted after the deadlines, even if here, I
missed the deadlines because of factors not under my control, but trying
my best.

So, the main point is that apparently it is better to do more work and make
everyone frustrated than to just accept already (hopefully well-) done work
and continue peacfully.  I don't see the reason WHY (hence I Cc'd ctte).
It is not about power.

> Adam, let's assume for the moment I've got that right.  I'm trying to connect with the frustration I'd feel if I were told that I didn't even have the power to distance myself from something I couldn't in good conscious claim to support. I hope that there's some way that michael can approach stepping away from the package in jessie if he wants to. If what you're saying is that his proposed mechanism for doing that is the wrong one, would you be willing to help him out and suggest a mechanism you believe to be more appropriate?  (Perhaps you'd approve an ublock for an upload that simply changed maintainer to debian-qa?)

There's no need to change maintainer, it is debian-boot (d-i team) and
it remains like that, at least in busybox.  In busybox my name is in
Uploaders: field only.  For mdadm, on the other hand, even if it is set
as team-maintained, the sole maintainer is me, so that'd be appropriate
to change maintainer to debian-qa.

Both packages affects d-i, and for the reasons I already described, I
can't do that myself, since I'll face the same unblock request process
from the D-I team.  More, I don't really want to keep my name as the
author of last changelog entry in this case.

> If what you're saying is that you see no mechanism for him to step away from a package he no longer feels he can maintain because he and the release team disagree with the desired contents of that package in Jessie, then I respectfully ask you to reconsider that position.  That sort of thing would likely drive me away from the entire project, not just one package.

Actually this was my first reaction, but I thought I'd wait for a bit
and just point out a possible defect in debian, possible request for

> Micahel, one final question to you. Are you firmly committed to the path of stepping away from busybox maintenance, or would you be willing to re-evaluate that decision after we see what comes of your request for understanding?

I don't believe there's any other alternative actually.  I dunno, it is
difficult to think.  I wanted to understand the WHY first, because clearly,
as I tried to describe, I don't see, at all, why this is done.  I don't
really feel "powerless", that's not the problem, after all no single person
should have absolute powers (including Cyril, no matter how respectful I
or anyone else is for him due to his work).  After all I always have absolute
power to continue maintaining the package locally, and that's what I definitely
will do, because I depend on it and I don't want it to become in that really
bad shape it was before me.  But so far no one bothered to describe this "why"
to me, I asked several times.  And I don't really want to make pressure to
Cyril more, to "force" him to overwrite his decision.  So basically, I don't
see alternatives.

> thanks for your consideration,

Thank you for your time and energy trying to understand the mess I wrote.
And I agree I used too harsh words in this story, unnecessary harsh.  This
was due to my own issues, unrelated to Debian, and should not happen.  I
apologize for that.

Version: GnuPG v1


Reply to: