Re: New maintainer behaviour with NMU and LogJam's hijacking
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:47:29AM +0100, Christian Surchi wrote:
> 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.
I'm the upstream author of LogJam.
When I finally released this most recent version (the one Ari packaged),
I sent the release announcement to everyone who has packaged LogJam in
the past, including Christian.
However, due to Christian's backlog, LogJam in Debian has often been
behind a few versions. The version currently in testing (3.0.3) is even
back a patch version; according to the datestamps on my files I released
3.0.4 on May first of this year, which makes that almost half a year
old. (I am sorry to say I don't know the proper protocol in Debian for
this-- do I file a bug report on the package saying there's a new
version?)
I have a friend at Redhat who builds packages for me. I am a devoted
Debian user and I was a little embarrassed that the RPMs I provided were
more recent than the debs. I appreciate the problem of backlog. I
myself am often backlogged in my mail. So when I decided 4.0 (a port to
GTK2 with a lot of new code) was ready I did not try to circumvent
Christian-- for example, I didn't contacting another Debian maintainer--
and instead just built my own DEBs and provided them myself. When Ari
saw I had done this, he told me he'd package it himself and so I removed
mine.
Though it is true the version he packaged was from CVS, he did so
because it includes bugfixes. Ari watches my CVS commit log so I think
he knows what building a CVS version meant.
After everything's said and done, though:
If you cannot do the packaging (as you yourself have written), what harm
does it do for someone else to do it? If it's too much work for you,
Ari has already demonstrated he has the free time...
Otherwise, once you're caught up on your mail, I'm sure you can continue
packaging LogJam.
Sorry to be a bother, everyone! :)
--
Evan Martin
martine@cs.washington.edu
http://neugierig.org
Reply to: