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

Re: Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:11:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 04:54:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> > Here is the relevant section of the .changes file for the package in
> > question:

> >   Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:40:59 +0100
> >   Source: kernel-latest-powerpc
> >   [...]
> >   Changes: 
> >    kernel-latest-powerpc (101) unstable; urgency=low
> >    .
> >      * Typo in debian/control created kernel-headers-2.[46]-powerpc instead of
> >        kernel-headers-2.[46]. Fixing this means another wait in the NEW queue :(

> > This merely underscores the contrast between Anthony's recommendation --
> > being resourceful enough to find a way to achieve the things you care about
> > when no one is interested in helping you -- and what you've done in this
> > case -- whine that a name change on *headers* metapackages that are used
> > nowhere in the installer prevented you from improving the quality of that
> > installer.

> It was a damn typo i oversighted in the 100 version. And the mention that
> itmeans a wait in the NEW queue was in no way a whining, but an informative
> mention to whoever would look in the svn archive for the package wondering why
> this problem (which marked kernel-latest-powerpc uninstallable for almost two
> month) was indeed solved and waiting in NEW.

> and notice that these packages are not used on powerpc because Kamion didn't
> modify base-installer to use them, while they are used (unless i am mistaken)
> in the x86 case, and in general are meant to be used, which makes changing
> kernel possible without rebuilding the base-installer .udeb, and thus allows
> more flexibility.

According to the changes file, the changes found in the version of
kernel-latest-powerpc that was stuck in NEW were *completely orthogonal* to
the use of these kernel-image metapackages could be used from within
base-installer.  NEW processing has *nothing* to do with why base-installer
wasn't updated, and you are way off-base in blaming the ftpmasters for this.

> Notice also that the metapackages in question where ones transfered from
> wheree Jens had put them, namely in the kernel-images themselves, which caused
> lot of breakage as you well know once we had more than one kernel version in
> the archive.

Off-hand, no, I can't think of any breakage that this caused; it's possible
Colin took care of it before I noticed it, of course.

> I mentioned this fact to Kamion, and he told me he would not bother
> ftp-masters about this, since the packages name where to generic for his, and
> dismissing my argument that these where the names of the kernel-header
> metapackages previously used.

Yes, because Colin has the good sense to know that kernel-header
metapackages have no bearing on the installer.

> I also wrote an email to ftp-masters explaining why it was important that this
> package got processed to the d-i release schedule, and also mentioning 2.6.10
> whihc was a potential release candidate, that email was helpfull and nice, but
> i got nil reply to it.

Well, since you were wrong about it being important to the d-i release
schedule, I can't fault them for expediting the package on your say-so, can

> And i think that this is the real problem here, any mention of the NEW queue
> is seen by the ftp-masters and others involved like whining, and there is a
> knee-jerk reaction to fully dismiss the issue as far as possible then, while
> it may well be some half humorous attempt to get over the frustration of it or
> just be informative.

No, it's really just absurd posts claiming that lack of NEW processing is
preventing them from doing useful work that earn the label of "whining"

> > And with all that, the kernel-latest-powerpc package is still in an RC
> > broken state, because you chose to make a last-minute reorganization of
> > kernel-patch-powerpc-2.4.27 without updating kernel-latest-powerpc to match.
> > You can hardly blame the ftpmasters for this state of affairs.

> Nope, i uploaded the fix. it's in NEW again i think, let me check. Ah, no,
> they where accepted on march 5, please check your sources before making such
> aggressive claims.

Sorry, I missed the changelog on version 102; I didn't realize you'd changed
the dependencies of the kernel-image-power[34] metapackages.  Retracted.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: