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

Re: Intent to hijack Bacula

* Roberto Lumbreras (rover@debian.org) wrote:
> I don't agree, all those things are not in my opinion enough for the
> hijacking.

Thankfully, you're wrong.

> The package has bugs, lots of them, and for that reason has been removed
> from testing, well done, unstable it is here for that.

It's *not* ok for the package to have been removed from testing.  It
also had no real hope getting back into testing at the rate with which
the bugs were being resolved by Jose.

> The lots of bugs had not been solved, and several upstream versions had
> delayed again and again the uploads Jose Luis has been working on. A lot of
> work have to be done to package a new version, and a new upstream version
> when the last one is not yet finished doesn't help to get the things done.

That's not an excuse.  At all.

> Ok, the maintainer has not fixed the bugs, has not packaged the last
> version of it in time, etc, but he has done a great job anyway, and I
> still don't see the point of hijacking the package.

He *hasn't* done a great job..  That would be basically the *point*.

> If the maintainer still wants to maintain it, help him, do NMUs, whatever,
> but I'm still looking for one reason you can take over the package against
> the maintainer opinion.

He wants to have his name on the package w/o doing the work
(apparently).  That's not maintaining it, regardless of what he'd like
to claim.

> rover, Jose Luis's sponsor and uploader of many of his packages including
> bacula, you can blame me also if you want

We do.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: