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

Re: Installed sather 1.2.1-5 (i386 all source)

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 06:24:02PM +0100, Guillaume Morin wrote:
> > According to Debian freeze practice, NMU'ing to fix unbuildable packages
> > is acceptable without advance notice.
> Quoting "7.3 When to do a source NMU"
> "During the release freeze (see Uploading to frozen, Section,
> NMUs which fix serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and
> accepted. Even during this window, however, you should endeavor to reach
> the current maintainer of the package; they might be just about to
> upload a fix for the problem."

In practice this policy is significantly relaxed for bugsquash parties,
packages that don't build from source, and packages whose maintainers
are idle or unreachable.

I agree that the Policy should better reflect current practice.  Shall
we go about drafting an amendment?

> <FLAME style="Overfiend">
> Maybe you want to get in touch with debian-l10n-english to be sure you
> properly understand the developers reference.
> </FLAME>

Maybe you should spend more time observing how things are actually done.

> As I've said before, you did _not_ contact him although he had a fixed
> version. Furthermore, software which is extra/optional priority is not
> in freeze so you _had_ to contact him.

So, you want to read Policy scrupulously literally?  Fine.  I can play
that game.

The policy doesn't say I "must" contact him.  It says I "should".  I
didn't see the point in contacting him about a package he didn't seem to
care about anymore, since he hadn't uploaded a version in 14 months, had
already been NMU'ed twice, and left release-critical bugs open for
months at a time.

Furthermore, the policy does not recognize freezes of portions of the
release.  It just says "during the release freeze".  We are in a release
freeze (see the archives of debian-devel-announce if you doubt this).

> > Some fun facts:
> (snip)
> I think that Eray has provided enough information on these issues.

All the information anyone needs is available in the package changelog
and in the Debian Bug Tracking System.  I'm not making any assertions
that people can't easily verify for themselves.

On the other hand, all we have from Eray are his assurances that we was
working on the package, and yet his uploads show little evidence of
doing much but incorporating changes that people's NMU's have made (and
that only inconsistently).  I prepared my NMU's of sather in a couple of
hours' time total, and I am not intimately familiar with the package.
The problems with the package were neither subtle nor difficult to fix.
What was he doing with it for 14 months?

Eray's claims are not falsifiable, and must therefore be taken as an
article of faith.  The facts I have cited are independently verifiable.
I invite you to do so.

> If you think that he has not, please follow the procedures thoroughly.

I followed the correct procedure for marking a package as unmaintained.

> Your way of acting always discredits your motivation.

Whatever this means, it doesn't sound like a logical argument.

G. Branden Robinson                |     If you have the slightest bit of
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     intellectual integrity you cannot
branden@debian.org                 |     support the government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- anonymous

Attachment: pgpPpvs3b1fum.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: