Re: Proposal for removal of mICQ package
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:33:52AM +0100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > -- be sure that upstream is passing any misdirected (sent directly to
> > upstream and debian specific) bug reports from Debian users back down
> > to you
> > -- find out in advance about any plans that you need to be prepared for
> > -- make sure that upstream is happy with your work, and that you're
> > not messing up anything non-obvious in the packaging
> My experience is that even with the best possible relationship with upstream
> the last three often don't happen.
> For example, there is no chance of the NSA people giving me any notice of
> their future plans before they publically announce them, and they are
> hesitant to pre-announce changes on the list in case they are unable to
> deliver what they announce.
Typically, for some of my packages, the first time I hear that a new
upstream version is released is when my Debian users tell me so, despite
having a very responsive author for future features, etc.
So I spend time to upgrade my Debian packages, and before I even finish,
upstream release the next version...
I seem to recall at one stage I closed a wishlist bug to package the
latest version only to be told that it was already obsolete.
(I am not going to say which packages, because apart from these last
three points the working relationship with these authors has been
Brian May <email@example.com>