Re: NEW handling ...
On Sunday 20 March 2005 12:08, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:40:34PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > On Friday 18 March 2005 13:26, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > And yes, i volunteer to help out NEW handling, if that help is wanted.
> >
> > Vapourware. I believe that for most packages it is quite easy to see why
> > they are not allowed into unstable. Compile this list+reasons so that
> > everyone who is interested in these packages can quickly see where the
> > problems are. If there is any interest in contents of NEW this list would
> > be very handy to get a quick overview of the problems plaguing NEW
> > packages.
>
> I can even tell you now all the easy ones: all libraries which are policy
> mandated to change their source name in case of soname change. The
> kernel-source and various kernel-patch/image/whatever package or other
> packages which need to have the version number embedded in the package
> name. Source package which gain or loose a couple of binary packages in a
> reasonable and easy-to-autocheck way.
The way you say that leads me to the conclusion that you are only guessing.
Do you really want to know how many libraries in NEW currently are waiting for
a binary with a new soname?
One:
liboil0.3 0.3.0-1
source i386 unstable
2 months David Schleef #284486
liboil 0.3.1-1
source i386 unstable
2 days David Schleef
Let's take a look at kernel images stuck in NEW:
$ egrep '^<td[^<]*</td>' new.html | cut -d '>' -f 2 | cut -d '<' -f 1 | grep
kernel
kernel-patch-2.4-blooper
kernel-patch-2.4-pom
kernel-latest-2.6-hppa
kernel-patch-suspend2
kernel-image-2.6.8-ia64
kernel-image-2.6.10-sparc
Using some awk magic I get this table:
kernel-patch-2.4-blooper 1.1
source all unstable
11 months Matthew Grant
kernel-patch-2.4-pom 20031219-1
source all unstable
11 months Matthew Grant
We already talked about those.
kernel-latest-2.6-hppa 2.6.8-1
source hppa unstable
1 month Kyle McMartin
debian-kernel managed kernel-image tracker packages seem to be called
kernel-image-$ver-$subarch (e.g. kernel-image-2.6-686). Debian should strive
to unify this as much as possible. REJECT. No wait, REJECTing this out of
hand would lead to a pissed maintainer filling FMs mailbox. FMs are not
debian-mentor, just let it rot, perhaps someone can clue him in...
kernel-patch-suspend2 2.1.8.1-1
2.1.8-3
source all experimental
1 week martin f. krafft #292479
I have already grabbed that one from the repository on martins page since I am
desperatly wanting to hibernate my laptop. Well obviously not desperatly
enough because I haven't yet fixed the patch for 2.6.10-current which would
be needed to get any semblance of ACPI working on this one.
kernel-image-2.6.8-ia64 2.6.8-13
source ia64 unstable
3 days Debian Kernel Team
kernel-image-2.6.10-sparc 2.6.10-6
source sparc unstable
3 days Debian Kernel Team
That leaves two packages which are only three days old. There are
> > Having a website separating the hard cases from the easy ones is the
> > first step needed to get a discussion about the rest going.
>
> no, first step is getting a guarantee that the above will be useful and
> accepted, or at least considered by the ftp-masters, or it is just work
> that will be thrown away, and i have better things to do than that.
You still want to "force" others to do work for you. There can be no guarantee
from a volunteer in the face of real life and real problems.
The only way you have to accelerate things is to do the work yourself. Since
there are no statistics but only anecdotal evidence from some pissed
maintainers you also won't be able to measure any progress you cause. In the
worst case, you will be able to collect the needed hard statistics (and
stories behind the packages) to convince the project that current FMs really
are the lazy sods you and will put you in charge since you already
demonstrated your ability to do the grunt work.
> > And "discussion" in this case doesn't mean posting long rants from the
> > uploaders on d-devel how unfairly the cabal has ignored his package since
> > he uploaded it five years ago to NEW and never cared afterwards.
>
> I on various case posted to ftp-masters about some of my packages in NEW,
> which where important to get processed for whatever reason. I never got a
> single reply on any of those.
Thanks for making my point: "discussion" doesn't include "prods" from the
packages maintainer to ftpmaster@d.o why his package is oh so much more
important and perfect than everything else. As Anthony also stated several
times in the last few weeks this behaviour will only alienate those behind
ftpmaster@d.o further.
> But let's hope that the new blood and organisation of the ftp-master's team
> will help get this situation to manageable proportions, as new blood helped
> in the NM case, and others too.
Since I too am not willing to do the work (NEW is fast enough[tm] for me) we
have to wait for others to step up.
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Reply to: