Re: Ogre3d : Upstream paths have changed and the licensing has changed
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 19:24:52 Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 at 12:42:37 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
> > Now, for your information and for the rest of the people in the mailing
> > list which might not know: I created the package 1.7.1 and uploaded it
> > 2 months and a half ago, as NMU/overtake of the package.
> If you're a member of the games team, there's no need to hijack the
> package, you can just add yourself to Uploaders and be a co-maintainer.
> If you're not a member, perhaps you could join and maintain it in this
> team rather than hijacking our packages? Even if you're going to be the
> only regular uploader, it seems appropriate to maintain a library for
> games in the Games Team, and membership of this team is generally rather
> open. Joining a relevant team can also be a good way to find sponsors
> (maintainers of packages that use Ogre might be willing to sponsor it,
> for instance).
Ogre is not a library for games, it's a 3D library in general, in fact I
worked with it more with non-game-related uses than with game-related ones.
Anyway, I joined the team and it took a while to get approved. I have
another sponsors at hand which do not mind to upload the packages for me, so
that is not a problem.
> Hijacking Debian packages from another maintainer, even an inactive one,
> is generally not done, so that's one reason why an ftpmaster reviewing
> the NEW queue might decide to review a less troublesome package instead.
That doesn't make sense, maintainers who do not even care about orphaning
the packages when they are interested, and do not reply to messages intended
to them, are not their effective maintainers anymore.
> > Of course, mid october was relatively late in the freeze process so it
> > won't get into the next stable. But it also didn't get approved for
> > unstable because FTP-masters don't want to consider it for some reason
> > (probably because they don't care for package that won't go into
> > stable).
> The upload was to unstable, during a freeze, but Ogre appears to break
> compatibility (SONAME) with every upstream version. That's certainly not
> appropriate during a freeze.
> It'd be much more appropriate to upload each new Ogre version to
> experimental, make sure all packages that depend on it work when rebuilt
> against the new version, then (when squeeze has been released and the
> freeze is over!) ask the release team when you can re-upload to
> unstable, make any uploads or binNMUs that are needed for packages that
> depend on it, and get it into testing (a transition, in release team
> jargon). This applies at all times, but even more so in a freeze.
> The ftpmasters do accept NEW uploads during a freeze, but only to
> experimental (which will never go into testing without further uploads),
> or to unstable for packages that won't break/delay the release (such as
> ioquake3, which was safe to put in unstable because nothing in squeeze
> depends on it).
The full 3 packages that depend on it are also either outdated since a few
months ago (some of which I intended to update, or prod maintainers to do
so), not updated in 3 years (so if they don't adapt to the new OGRE they
will have to be removed anyway), or arguably not worth to be packaged in
Debian. So the above approach that you describe, while it would be good in
general, I don't think that it's appropriate in this case.
> You're (now) the sole maintainer with no co-maintainers - what happens
> if you lose interest or can't find a sponsor?
I certainly didn't intend to do that, I intended to leave all maintainers as
> Hopefully that gives you some things to think about. Perhaps you could
> address some of those in a -2 upload to experimental?
I busied myself with another stuff now, seeing the lack of response, sorry.
If I take another look at it I'll have those into account, though.
Thanks and cheers.
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <email@example.com>