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

Re: Bug#133578: gdm bug #133578. Intend to NMU.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:26:11 +0200, Michael Piefel <piefel@debian.org> said: 

> Am Di, den 20.04.2004 schrieb Sebastien Bacher um 10:00:
>> If you don't care of working on that, so you simply don't care of
>> this package ...

> I do not believe it is the maintainers responsibility to fix a
> problem inherent to the program in question. Fix packaging problems,
> fix trivial bugs, relay severe bugs upstream. Anything else is
> optional.

	You have a strange view of the resposibilities of a Debian

	I think I tend to disagree violently here. I really expect
 more of a debian developer than a glorified bureaucrat -- we are
 trying to create the best free distribution, and that often entails
 making the package *better* than what is created upstream, and then
 reporting the improvements back upstream.

        Developers are far more than packagers with a @d.o email, they
 are responsible for ensuring that their packages fit policy
 (including ensuring the config files are looked for in /etc; closing
 any /tmp race bugs). They also have a responsibility to act on behalf
 of our users and bring upstream bugs to the attention of upstream,
 and help upstream by triaging problem reports and ensuring that there
 is enough data for upstream to solve problems that the developer can

	And no, all the rest of it is not optional.  I reject the
 premise that all a developer has to be is a a glorified packager, who
 mechanically packages software, and shuffles off problems with the
 package blindly upstream. How can we say we are trying to build the
 best OS out there with a bunch of people merely marking time?

        I see a developer as an active participant in the improvement
 of the software they maintain (we are maintainers, after all, not
 packagers); who actively ensure the package integrates into the
 Debian system. In the early days of the FSSTND,there was a lot of
 work done to modify packages to fit the file system, and in several
 cases far in advance of the upstreams willinglness to accept the
 changes (I struggled with LaTeX2HTML for years).

        A maintainer has always made changes, accepted by upstream or
 not, to integrate the software into the set of Debian standards.

	Membership in Debian is not an entitlement; a certain amount
 of commitment is definitely expected. Speaking as one who has not had
 a whole lot of time recently, I still thik that quality of Debian is
 more important than letting folks who are busy just neglect doing
 what thier packages require.

	If their lack of time is lowering the quality of the
 distribution, I think they should get rid of some (all) their
 packages till they have more time to devote to the project. We
 already have an NMU mechanism. What we need is a place where busy
 people can log their lack of time in the short term, and ask for

Indecision is the true basis for flexibility.  Manoj Srivastava
<srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: