So since it seems that I'm not the only one that ran into upload problems
I want to emphasise one thing. If the release process and also ftpmaster
has some problems - so be it, problems happen, that's OK. But it is
another thing to get ignored and/or treated like an idiot.
And if handling the bureaucratic aparatus starts to consume more time than
the actual work it's time that things get fixed!
For your refernce the story:
On the 23th of March, 1.5 months before planed release Anthony presented
the scenario to move non-us into main(us) He wrote:
"Your initial upload should do as little as possible other
than move the package to main. Uploads that do nothing
but change the section: from non-US to one of the main
sections will be approved fairly quickly."
Mind the word "should" and "Uploads that do nothing
but change the section [..] will be approved fairly
"There are a whole bunch of GPLed programs that link
against libssl. This isn't okay, see the OpenSSL FAQ's
We've been lax about this in the past, we'll try to get
this right as packages are uploaded to main."
On the contrary the referenced URL doesn't state anything
like "it isn't okay". It says 3 things:
1) if openssl is included in the normal distribution
it's OK to link against openssl. (Debian _is_
including openssl with it!)
2) Else it says "Some GPL software copyright holders
claim that you infringe on their rights"
3) You're on the safe side if you state that it's OK
to link your software against openssl.
I have asked in various places why the powers have come
up with such a requirement but have ___never___ found
anybody who could tell me why linking with openssl
should be a problem.
On the 18th of April I uploaded mailsync 4.3 that fixed a ***trivial***
(that's _one_ line in the diff!) bug, that causes it to
segfault in one situation and moved it to main. Out of
ignorance I did not include the "It's OK to link with
The package was rejected.
I contacted ftpmaster. James told me that
a) I _have_ to change the section _only_.
b) I _have_ to include the linking blurb in Debian's
So allthough I'm also upstream maintainer of mailsync I
_have_ to state to myself that it's ok if I myself link
mailsync against openssl. And it's not enough that I do
it in mailsync's README. I _have_ to state in in
Debian's copyright file otherwise James won't let it in.
Well, I did not like at all being _forced_ to furnish
all these bureaucratic statements, without any aparent
reason, without there being a clear explanation (!!)
as to why one _has_ to include the statement.
Asking James why I should do that and whether there was
somewhere an explanation of this resulted in a
short reply consisting mainly of a "*plonk*".
And I also did not like someone pretending that he knows
better than me about my own package and it's fixes
allthough the original statement explicitly does _not_
exclude other things being changed.
But oh well, I did as told and uploaded exactly what
On the 19th of April after seeing that the package was nowhere to be found
in incoming nor in the pool I inquired what had happened
with it and recieved yet another oneliner by James:
"learn how to use locate(1) or find(1)"
So since the release process does not seem to be
documented one is supposed to be reading minds and
to know that unlike the other times, when things get
discarded without further notice that there is
somewhere on the same machine a hidden queue/new where
the packages get actually placed (they could also
move to some other machine - how should I know?)
This time I did not bother James no more and been
On the 30th of April
mailsync is not in, any and every further question
what's happening on either debian-devel or to ftpmaster
are getting ignored.
Anthony states that uploaded packages that should go
into woody will be automatically removed because as
Erich Schubert writes "Because if you really DO need to
get the new package into woody, this implies that there
is a bigger problem with the old version."
Release day (oracle)
After a month of waiting for the mercy of the powers
nothing has happend and mailsync will be realeased in
non-us anyway with a trivially to be fixed bug.
Problems are a reality, no problem with that.
Being rude to maintainers is not fine at all.
It is espacialy not OK if one is being rude and arrogant to maintainers if
they can't read ones mind and/or what one is expecting is not documented
or even documented differently.
Again - I do accept that there are problems and I do accept that people
might be stressed. Everyone has RL and everyone might lack time - that's
not the ftpmaster's privilege.
So _______please_______ stop behaving like allmighty enlightened
dictators. Please treat maintainers as they are - people that would like
to contribute, who spend their time trying to give to the project, just
like you do, that might not be as clever as you are but maybe not that
On the 1st of May and that's
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Tomas Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Uh, the whole point of ignoring enquiries is that it wastes far less of
> > the ignorer's time than responding to them.
> Speaking of which - how long does it currently take for a package to move
> from non-us to us? It'd be nice to have a bugfixed mailsync  released
> but with the current pace it doesn't seem likely to happen.
>  current mailsync in queue/new has only non-us -> us changes. An upload
> that contained a one line patch to fix a trivial segfault was
> explicitly refused by James. If/when the current mailsync moves into
> unstable I'll try to follow up immediately with the "oneliner"
> bugfixed version.
SourcePole - Linux & Open Source Solutions
Elestastrasse 18, 7310 Bad Ragaz, Switzerland
Tel: +41 (81) 330 77 11
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org