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

Re: NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody

On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:06:55PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> Well Ben, there are two reasons that I ignored the NMUs.
> The first reason is that Kaffe revisions have been so long in coming that
> the 1.0.6 source base bears little to no resembelence to the 1.0.5
> source. Maintaining the patches that were done against 1.0.5 would be
> difficult at best and I was more concerned with getting 1.0.6 out so
> that people could use it.

So superficial version numbers are more important than stability? I see.
Problem is that the patches I applied to this had a lot to do with the
debian files (build failures because of faulty hard coded options). Which
means, you should have incorporated them.

> This issue is about to be compounded by the fact that Transvirtual is
> merging all of their proprietary code into the open source base. This
> means that a spectrum of features (framebuffer AWT, improved JIT, much
> better native thread support, etc.) will be moving into the GPL source
> base.
> So, in short 1.0.6 and the release after will both represent what are
> effectively new pieces of software and tracking bugs let alone source
> patches across those releases will be a waste of everyone's time.

Hey, sounds _a lot_ like 10% of the rest of Debian packages! WOW. However,
that is no excuse to ignore a) valid patches and b) changelogs which
denote the history of the package as it pertains to Debian. Even if you
don't like it, it is still there, and should remain. Removing it in favor
of your personal image is not an excuse.

> The second reason I chose to cut a lot of NMU changelogs was that you
> took it upon yourself to load them with vindictive, personal and
> unprofessional statements. Why you need to say things like "I wish the
> maintainer of this software would pay attention to his packages" in a
> changelog is completely beyond me.

Vidictive? Hell, I could have said a lot worse. I don't think making a
request for some attention to your package was too much to ask.

> I insured that a 1.0.5 release was available days after it was
> released, as I did with 1.0.6, yet you continue to try and paint a
> picture of negligence. Frankly, it seems clear to me that its personal
> and I don't no why. Nor do I care.

No, it's clear that removing patches and changelogs that I and others
took the time to NMU, was personal.

> I spent all last week working in Transvirtual's offices, know Tim
> Wilkinson personally and have an active business relationship with TVT. 
> I use Kaffe on a daily basis, package it for my own use and currently use 
> it on a number of handheld devices including the MIPS platform (for more
> info see: http://www.pocketlinux.com).


> In short, I don't want to belittle your comments but I would ask you
> to conduct yourself a little more professionally. At least try to bring 
> issues to me (or at least debian-java) before you waste devel's time 
> with issues that have little or no basis.

Professionalism is what I did. I fixed the package, and made comments for
the maintainer. A simple request to do this yourself is not vindictive nor
unprofessional. Me having to do your job...now that makes you
unprofessional. Irregardless of how cozy you are with upstream companies,
you still need to fix bugs, not just killoff valid patches and work.

Again, you chose the quick and short route. Go back to when you knew what
the hell was going on with your package, upgrade to a new uptream (which
you claim is so different, and took so much effort) instead of doing it the
right way, by acknowledging the NMU's, forward-porting the patches and
maintaining stability. You did none of those. I bet you did not even try
to check the patches. It's not as if they were hard to find. In the potato
package they are even seperated in debian/patches/, so it would have been
a piece of cake to get them.

You claim you wanted to make it available so much, well guess what. The
bugs you ignored are now present again, and you just kept your nifty new
upstream version from more people because it FAILS to build and IS broken.
I bet you didn't even try to get the source patches incorporated upstream.
Roman Hodek took quite a bit of debug and test time to track down the m68k
errors, and now that you blew off that, it probably wont build on there

Good job Ean. You've done an excellent job of maintaining a quality

/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

Reply to: