Steve Langasek wrote:
> It is the responsibility of a package maintainer to ensure that fixes for
> bugs are uploaded in a timely manner. If José Luis isn't able to do this,
> because he doesn't have a sponsor or for any other reason, then he is not an
> effective maintainer for the package.
>
That is another matter, probably. I never claimed that I have been the
best maintainer for this.
> Actually, we've heard in this thread that Stephen (his AM) *did* offer to
> sponsor bacula uploads, and José Luis did not avail himself of this.
When the offer did come, I wasn't able to prepare the upload anyway.
I suspected that Stephen, given the state of things, would be in excess
picky with my packaging.
Moreover, I couldn't trust that he would upload in a timely manner...
> So
> it's not at all clear to me why you think anyone other than José Luis should
> bear the responsibility of this package not being fixed.
>
>> He has packaged the last version of bacula, and it is not uploaded
>> because it's not ready, then a new version was showed up... he has a
>> personal apt repository that users from bacula mailing list uses, and
>> packages (not yet finished) in sourceforge... so is it clear for you
>> that he is not going to work on it again?
>>
>
> IME, making plans in Debian based on whether someone else has *promised* to
> do something does not give very good results.
I can understand this.
> The bacula packages have been removed from testing *repeatedly* over the past year due to one RC bug or
> another being reported against it; and it seems that the only real movement
> towards getting them fixed has only come in response to John's takeover
> attempt.
It does happen to be the same time when I am finally home (just returned
from Sweden, where I have been for almost 21 months) and had the
opportunity to work effectively on my packages again.
Unfortunate coincidence, I must admit.
> I can't say that I fault John for wishing to take over this package and fix it.
>
Thank you for being impartial and acting cool on this, Steve.
However, regular practice for this is to offer help or co-maintainership
(which others did before) and not hijacking the package.
Even when I explicitly denied being willing to give up the package, John
has attempted (and almost succeeded already) hijacking my package. This
is what I don't accept.
I have in the past always accepted patches and included them as soon as
I could.
How is it different this time?
I can feel nervousness due to the upcoming freeze... there is still
almost three months left for the base freeze.
Why shouldn't I be able to fix my packages in a reasonable period of
time (say, before the end of May) now that I am back home? Assuming I
failed, this "super-duper developer", John Goerzen, has proved to be
able to "fix everything" to your liking in a very short amount of time,
and so would be able to have Bacula in Etch in no time.
If grave personal issues are not a valid excuse for not devoting Debian
as much time as I would have liked to in the past months, then most of
the people in this thread shall step out of it and shut up.
I won't point fingers here. You know who you are, and I need not say it.
If that is indeed the case, state it clearly so that all people
approaching Debian will be warned beforehand.
I will also consider whether I am interested in contributing any work to
Debian in that case, too... as will probably most other people.
However, I am amazed about how much attention Bacula has attracted as of
lately... when I first packaged it and began maintaining it almost three
years ago, nobody cared a bit about it. Now that the worst is over and
Bacula is becoming famous, all sorts of people want to have their names
attached to it... I can't hardly be surprised by this.
Note, however, that I have accepted co-maintainership (as long as it is
done on fair terms to me) and have even created an Alioth project for this.
Thanks,
J.L.