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

Re: Bug#192869: surfraw: surprized you added so many commands to /usr/bin

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 10:12:52AM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> > Which solutions are you suggesting?
> >  
> The main one I think is good is having a /usr/bin/surfraw/ or similar that
> users can add to their $PATH, or alias on a case by case basis as they prefer.

I thought of it in the past... I was not sure about moving to that
solution because I didn't know if it could be easily usable in that
way... but I think the presence of all those binaries is not a great
> Properly documented and executed, I believe this to be the most robust
> solution (certainly better than pre (or post) fixing "sr" to all the
> binaries).

Ok. Do you think about moving surfraw binary too?
> > > The package seems to be effectively unusable at the moment (see bug #200164)
> > > and looks effectively unmaintained to me (no upload in over a year, and no
> > > buglog entries from the maintainer in that long that I can find.)
> > 
> > I know...
> Why not?  There really are bloody *trivial* bugs to fix there!  The patch to
> fix #200164 (a critical bug!) is about 2 lines!  Even if you didn't have the
> skill to do it yourself, why isn't it tagged help?

I wrote "I know", because it's true. I can't understand your "Why not?".
> My skill with shell isn't up to quickly finding a fix for that bug, but it
> took me roughly 5 minutes to find someone (thanks to Jeff Bailey) who DID
> have the required skill.  It took him about 10 minutes to find the bug and
> come up with a patch.  This isn't a huge amount of work IMO.
> I'm sorry, but even if you are around, it seriously looks like this package
> is unmaintained.  Please convince me otherwise.

I can't find a reason to convince you... I said it's true. 
> It's not unreasonable for you to not have much time, that's fine.  But if
> you don't have time to take care of a package, then pass it on.  There are
> (at least) 3 other people who DO have time and who are willing to invest it
> in this package who have stepped forward to say they'd like it.  If you
> don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves, why haven't you
> filed an RFA?

Because I hoped to find time... and in fact I work on a few package a
few time ago... and then because I had another doubt about surfraw...
because there's no upstream development from so many time. I hoped in a
mail from its author to decide about its life or its death... but no
results and in the meatime time passed.
> > Time is the main problem for my lack of work on it... maybe we can share
> > time of several people to work on it, I think it's a very useful
> > package... if it works correctly, as you say. :)
> The names and emails of the 3 people who want to work should be in this
> buglog I think.  If you are interested, then maybe YOU could coordinate
> that?  It's (nominally) still your package after all!

I've already said that I thinks that a NMUed new package is necessary
and I describe briefly the upstream situation for surfraw too. Please,
read other mails from me too. :)

> > > Since there really are a lot of *trivial* to fix bugs, that have been lying
> > > around for a year, I'd say this package was unmaintained.  It looks to me
> > > like it could be a very useful package though.  If someone in the NM queue
> > > for example had the time to take this, then I'd be happy to sponsor uploads
> > > for them indefinitely.
> > 
> > Ok.
> ***NO***.  This is fucking NOT OKAY!
> If you want to be treated as not-MIA then you fucking well need to get up
> off your arse to coordinate and sponsor those uploads yourself.  If I have
> to sponsor them, I'll put whoever is doing the work into the Maintainer
> field.

I can't understand you behaviour... I'm simply admitting my negligence
and trying to help people that are trying to work on surfraw... do you
need to blame me in all the way you know? :)
> > I'm not MIA and I hope we can find people that can work on the package
> > and if possibile develop and maintain "plugins", because there is no
> > upstream release from so many time... I want to avoid its removal.
> Well, fine, off you go.  Find them!
> It took less than a day for three people to step forward who are all willing
> to work on and care for this package.  You've yet to show me any evidence
> that YOU are willing to.

I've already said that I'm happy for all this interest about surfraw, so
I'm open to all the solutions... I'd like to help again with it, so I'm
discussing with you and other interested maintainers.

Is there a NMU ready? Good! Let's move surfraw in a better state and
then we can decide... do you like this way? Can we move discussione
between us and other interested persons?


Reply to: