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

Re: Advice with uncooperative maintainers

* Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) [040812 06:25]:
> Greg Folkert <greg@gregfolkert.net> writes:
> > On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 20:16, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:41:28PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >> 
> >>  > > Two more options:
> >>  > > Hijack (which would be hijacked back imediatly I guess) or upload a
> >>  > > new package under a different name.
> >>  > 
> >>  > Hint: this package is maintained by a ftp-master ;-)

> >>  Are you suggesting that an ftp-master is going to abuse his role to
> >>  veto a package he doesn't approve of?  If that happens we have a larger
> >>  problem that some pitty sound server not working...

> > I don't think he is insinuating that. I do believe that JM is referring
> > the levity of doing an NMU, is much more grave when an ftp-master is the
> > one that you are NMU'ing  is one o'is packages. Best make sure all the
> > "eyes" dotted, "tees" crossed and follow the proscribed route.
> I think he ment more that uploading a fork of a package of an
> ftp-master could have trouble getting through queue/NEW. Reason for
> denial: duplicate.

I hope that ftp-master will reject in any case. There is no need to
duplicate packages in debian. If one package is broken, then fix it.

BTW, neither a NMUer nor d-devel could force the maintainer of any
package to take (or accept) a certain action. Only the technical
comitee can do that, so if you disagree with the maintainer (and if a
maintainer rolls back a NMU, this is definitly disagreement), you
could forward this issue to the TC.

   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to: