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

Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking

Firstly, I don't think this is a matter for debian-devel as it doesn't 
involve the project as a whole and would best be dealt with privately. 
Secondly, I'd like to apologize to Christian and the Debian project for 
not following exact policy. However, in my defense, I did contact 
Christian several times before making the NMU, and did explain to him 
numerous times privately after the NMU why I did certain things (such as 
using bug fixes from CVS, since certain things in the actual release 
needed to be corrected). Also, the actual logjam package had not 
received any attention since May even though a new 3.0.x release had 
been out, so having not received any response from any of my e-mails to 
Christian before the NMU, I felt things were going unnoticed. Also in my 
defense, the new 4.x version did fix a serious-level bug filed against 
the package, and the 3.x series of logjam was basically very unstable as a 
whole. I have also been in close contact with the upstream author of 
logjam, and maintain one of his other software packages, gtkspell, for 

In any case, if you have any further discussions about this, 
please contact Christian and me privately, unless this is appropriate 
to post in debian-devel for some reason.

On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:47:29AM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> I'm in Debian also because I like cooperative work and I hope Debian
> Project is not a competition, but I had to change my opinion because I
> did not receive respect from new maintainer Ari Pollak; and Debian did
> not receive any respect too.

> Maybe I forgot something... maybe this episode could be seen as not so
> important but it hit me strongly, in particular from the point of view
> of my idea about Our Project and Our Work.
> I don't know if I'll take care further of logjam debian packages.
> Thanks for your attention.
> Christian

Attachment: pgpJ3drVFA7ym.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: