Re: [OT] lazy maintainers
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:01:17AM -0500, Jared Johnson wrote:
> Doing an NMU without the maintainer's consent and without the
> maintainer being MIA is one of the more evil evil evil things a debian
> developer can do.
why? what's so evil about that? debian isn't a turf-war game of "mine,
mine, mine".
being maintainer of a package doesn't mean that it is your PROPERTY, it
means that it is your DUTY.
if a package maintainer, for whatever reason, is unwilling
or unable to perform the task he volunteered for (i.e. maintain a
particular package) then he should NOT get in the way of anyone else who
is willing to do the work.
IMO, it's sitting on a package and doing nothing with it that is evil.
> From there some ignorant fellow voiced his approval of kitame's
> attempt to knowingly hijack another maintainer's packages, and
> some others piped in their agreement with the completely falacious
> assumption myth is lazy and that a point-release in the 0.9.x series
it's got nothing to do with whether myth is lazy or a bad maintainer
or whatever. he's not, he does a good job, BUT he has reasons for not
uploading new versions of mozilla right now.
fine, we should respect his decision. he doesn't have to upload a new
version and no-one can force him to (or should even try)
but we have someone else who is willing to do what myth is unwilling
to do. problem solved. nobody, and that includes myth, should obstruct
that.
> is so important that debian policy and procedures should be ignored to
> get it in a week earlier.
it's not a matter of a week, or even a few weeks.
if history is anything to go by, it will be many months.
craig
ps: personally, i think if this doesn't get resolved soon then kitame
should just avoid the controversy and make a new package called
mozilla-kitame which provides, replaces, and conflicts with mozilla.
it's not a perfect solution (versioned dependancies don't work with
virtual packages) but it's better than nothing.
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: