Re: virtualbox-ose: package hijack?
Patrick Winnertz wrote:
> I started to check in the dfsg- tarball and you remove it again from the
> svn... who should a team work on a package if they doesn't use the same
> tarball at all?
tarballs can be produced with the invokation of 'debian/rules upstream'.
it is debatable if the upstream tarball has to be inside the svn, rather
than the alioth webspace (which I recommended you to do instead). other
teams, such as the kernel-team, do it similar. I still do not understand
why this is a problem for you, but that's not actually the point.
> I spoke with you about the removal, but you doesn't listen to me at all. So
> sorry, I started to work further at it with a new team.
Shall I cite the IRC log? I explained to you why I removed the tarball
and how we should do it in a, imho, better way (means, not storing
tarballs in svn, but on alioth webspace).
> See above. You showed me several times that you wasn't able to team -
> maintain this package. You doesn't listened to me if I try to speak with
> you about this issue in IRC.
I fail to see where I did not listen to you.
> We spoke yesterday (Sunday) about this issue in IRC and you ask me if you
> are allowed to reupload the 1.4.0 version with som minor fixes.
> I told you that I have against this strong objections.
>
> For people who can read german here a (small) part from the chat:
> ----
> 09:12:56 panthera | wie ich sehe, hast du mich aus vbox entfernt.
> hast du was dagegen, wenn ich mich als uploader reinsetze und ein paar
> dinge poliere in 1.4.0svn4130-dfsg-2?
> 09:52:34 winnie | ja..
> [ ... removed some stuff ... ]
you do cut out the important stuff, where you did give no rational
reason not upload it. instead, you refused to communicate.
> 10:38:30 panthera | gut, dann lade ich morgen abend -2 hoch.
> 10:38:59 winnie | nein.
> Day changed to 04 Sep 2007
> [ ... ]
> ----
> Sorry... I didn't see you in the vbox-devel channel over a loooong time
> period. At least: This issue is already fixed. I regulary speak with the
> upstream authors. But non the less this have to be fixed in debian too.
> I prepared an correct tarball which could be uploaded right after this one
> is removed.
great, can you please upload it as 1.5.0-dfsg2-1 then?
> In my eyes this is clearly a hijack of the package.
It's not and I also ask you to not remove me from uploaders in a next
upload.
> We both had ITPs for
> this package and you doesn't act for a long time. If I haven't uploaded it
> last week, I'm sure that nothing would have happened.
This is a wild assumption. I'm just back from some intensive work in
real-life last four weeks...
> I'll readd this entry to the changelog, yes. But I think a group
> maintaining with us both in this group would fail,
For the records: I do appreciate the work you did in the last weeks, and
I also do not care who is listed in the maintainer fields as long as I'm
in the upload field.
> since I reallly like to
> communicate everything quite intensive.
Then please do so and use e.g. the alioth mailinglist before removing
people who did the inital grunt wort and like to work on the package too?
Regards,
Daniel
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Reply to: