Re: [OT] lazy maintainers
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 06:54:51AM -0500, Jared Johnson wrote:
> On 08 Aug 2001 21:08:15 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > why? what's so evil about that? debian isn't a turf-war game of "mine,
> > mine, mine".
>
> debian isn't a turf-war game specifically because debian developers
> respect each others' imagined jurisdictions.
no, it's because most of us think that getting the job done at all is
far more important than WHO does it.
> http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-nmu.en.html
>
> Do I even need to point out that this makes it painfully clear that
> it is off limits to do an NMU without the maintainer of the package
> giving explicit permission or else being MIA for a long time?
it makes it painfully clear that it doesn't cover this situation.
> Myth is not MIA.
as far as mozilla is concerned, he may as well be.
> Kitame, on the other hand, has simply told debian-devel that he plans
> to NMU mozilla on account of alot of people wanting it. This is
> simply unacceptible.
in your opinion.
OTOH, i think it's perfectly acceptable.
someone doesn't want to do the job they volunteered to do (and yes, he
does have fairly valid reasons - that's irrelevant), and now we have
someone who IS willing to do that job. let him do it.
> > 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.
>
> Myth is neither unwilling nor unable to maintain it; in fact, he is
> maintaining it.
in precisely what manner is he maintaining it? by doing absolutely
nothing?
> > IMO, it's sitting on a package and doing nothing with it that is evil.
>
> Myth isn't sitting on any package, he's developing a package.
there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this theory of yours.
> Not uploading a suboptimal package is not evil.
no it's not. it happens all the time.
in fact, since no package is perfect (aka "optimal") it happens EVERY
time.
> > 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.
>
> bzzzzzt wrong, as i showed above.
nope. you showed nothing. you made an assertion, but that assertion is
just plain wrong.
> > 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.
>
> History is nothing to go by. The issues which obstructed mozilla's
> post-M18 versions from being uploaded are now non-issues.
so you claim.
proof requires more than just a vague claim.
> If most people aren't informed of the issues which are now preventing
> upload of the new pakacages, perhaps it's because Myth is too
> disgusted with their disrespectful comments about him, or perhaps
> because he's busy working on making the packages better.
you're the one who is turning this into an issue of respect or disrespect
for myth.
this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with myth. it's about the package, not the
person.
for reasons of his own, he is not maintaining this package. somebody
else is willing to do the job. let them.
i'd say the same thing for ANY package by ANY maintainer.
I say the same thing for MY packages. if someone wants to NMU my
packages, i'm not going to stop them. i may even use their changes in
my next upload (or i may not - i certainly don't feel any obligation to
keep their stuff) or i may orphan it if i realise that i'm not living
up to my duties as maintainer of that package. debian is more important
than my alleged "ownership" of any packages.
maintaining a package is not ownership, it is custodianship.
nothing gives package maintainers any right to sit on a package and do
nothing.
craig
--
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
-- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
Reply to: