Re: Intent to hijack Bacula
Roberto Lumbreras <rover@debian.org> wrote:
> The package has bugs, lots of them, and for that reason has been removed
> from testing, well done, unstable it is here for that.
No, it isn't. Maybe experimental is for that; but unstable is for
software that is targetted to be moved to etch and to be released.
> 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.
If upstream versions come in too fast, that's no reason for not
uploading a version that is better than the current one, even if it is
still not the newest upstream version.
If upstream versions change that much that each time the packaging needs
to be rewritten, either the software is not stable enough for a release
(which doesn't seem to be the case with bacula) or the packaging
approaches are bad.
> Ok, the maintainer [...] has done a great job anyway,
You don't give any reasons for this claim. John has given several
against it.
> rover, Jose Luis's sponsor and uploader of many of his packages including
> bacula, you can blame me also if you want
Indeed, if a package that a DD has sponsored into unstable has RC bugs,
they should care about it and make sure those bugs are fixed in time.
If you think you won't have time for this, don't sponsor the package.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: