Re: virtualbox-ose: package hijack?
Am Mittwoch, 5. September 2007 12:54:23 schrieb Daniel Baumann:
> 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.
Mh... I would really prefer to do not post here private logs, but if you
agree I can easily do:
But to summarize this issue:
I add it to the svn you removed it and when i ask you why you do it, you
told me that the tarballs doesn't belong into svn. you never mention any
other place where to put the tarball.
The only thing you mentioned were debian/rules upstream to build it, so
that everybody can build his own tarball to work on.... sorry but this
Furthermore your tone was not very friendly but very nerved and tersely.
> 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.
As I mentioned above i would prefer not to post private logs here. But if
you like I can easily do.
You told me several times that you prepared a finished package but you
simply forgot to commit your changes into the svn, and that you will
upload it debian "this night". When I remember correct you told me this 3
times. 3 times nothing happens.
> > 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.
As I mentioned above I would prefer not to post the full communication,
since this is private. (And as you know there are some things within you
won't want to see in public).
But to summarize:
I told you that I don't have to explain why you shouldn't in the group, but
you have to explain why to be in it.
Then you try to threaten me with "do you really want a
schlammschlacht....? " (freely translated, sorry doesn't no a fitting
As reason why I do not want you to be within the maintaining group I told
you that I group maintain it with Michael and Marvin and this is more than
enough people for this package.
> > 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?
No. This thing have to be removed from the archive fast... see mail from
ganneff. I'll upload it as 1.5.0-dfsg-1.
Furthermore upstream states several months ago that they doesn't like your
packaging, and doesn't really want you as maintainer.. if you like I'll
can also show some logs here, or you simply believe me. This discussion
was made in #vbox-dev on freenode. (where you doesn't show up since
several months.) So.. where is your active discussion with this license
issues with upstream? There were really hugh problems concerning
virtualbox which you simply do not see when uploading the package the
first time (sponsored for Philipp Hug) at debconf.
I'll merge some of your changes you made in your fast and dirty made
package and mention you in the changelog. Thats all.
> > 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
Sorry?!? You'll never talked with me after the debconf upload (which was
also a very fast and dirty hack). Everytime I started after this a
communication with you I got as a answer: Sorry I have no time. Please do
not distrurb (also freely translated).
> > 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...
s/four weeks/more than six months/ ...
It's okay to have a real-life.. I also have one. But if you have one and do
not do anything the last 6 months you can state that and say: Sorry I have
atm no time for this. (/me is currently looking on all the bugs assigned
to you... wow ). This is not a problem. I also have sometimes no time for
doing something then it have to wait some weeks.
Please have a look on the bugs which are all assigned to you... and how
many are fixed there. You have much to many packages which you maintain
and many of them are more or less unmaintained and have several serious
bugs assigned to them. I do understand that you don't have that time to
work on virtualbox, but then you should also accept that we do not want to
add you to the Uploader field only because you would like to be a
maintainer of it.
> > 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.
Why? See above.
> > 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
I've looked at the svn commits... for all who also want to have a look on
it please see here:
All things you do was the initial commit loong ago and then twice you
changed only the changelog.
And then after I start working in it, you revert my complete changes.
This are _all_ changes you made every public to this package.
.''`. Patrick Winnertz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
: :' : GNU/Linux Debian-Edu Developer
`. `'` http://www.der-winnie.de http://d.skolelinux.org/~winnie
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems