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

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

Hash: SHA1

On Monday 29 October 2001 23:25, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 11:16:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Eray exhibits extremely poor package management practices.  This is
> > tolerable if he is willing to accept the fact that this will lead to
> > NMU's if his package has Policy problems (like, say, being unbuildable
> > or uninstallable, both problems that have persisted for months at a time
> > with sather while it has been in his stewardship).
> Who is uploading his packages without checks? Whoever is uploading
> should be checking that he hasn't reverted NMUs etc.

Please check the packages and read other messages on this thread.

There is no such thing as a reverted NMU.

As I wrote twice already, Mr. Branden's -2.3 NMU was uploaded only an hour or 
so before my sponsor uploaded -3. By the time he uploaded that NMU I had 
already sent off the files to my sponsor.

Taking what Branden says as true, he was unaware that I was getting a new 
version sponsored. I was also unaware that he was working on an NMU. Though 
he could have told me that he intended so because I was on IRC all the time. 
And he should have, as a matter of fact. We could have avoided duplication of 
effort; and sather isn't exactly a small program.

There should be no surprise why -2.3 was not included in -3, it didn't exist 
when I finished -3 version. I received the message from the installer after I 
sent the files to my sponsor, and I was pretty surprised.

And yes, my sponsors do check such things. They always perform very thorough 

In -5, I merged in changes from his -2.3, which should of course not be 
ignored. However, it also has a bug which I fixed and explained in other 

And in -5, I do not include the changelog entry from _his_ -4 because it 
consists of only a changelog entry claiming that I've failed to acknowledge 
NMU's, which is incorrect as I have just explained.

Note that -4 was uploaded again just as I was working on a new release to 
incorporate his changes (_my_ -4) that's why I had to bump the revision 
number. Coincidence?

See the changelog for _his_ -4, there are no fixes but angry and misdirected 


- -- 
Eray Ozkural (exa) <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
www: http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~erayo
GPG public key fingerprint: 360C 852F 88B0 A745 F31B  EA0F 7C07 AE16 874D 539C
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org


Reply to: