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

Re: virtualbox-ose: package hijack?

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:39:42AM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Michael Meskes wrote:
> > I have no idea what Daniel really did on the package.
> I did about 90% of the inital packaging.

Which just left the last 90% of the packaging, I guess.

> Patrick uploaded removed me from changelog in the two last uploads
> (virtualbox 1.4.0svn4130-dfsg-1 and virtualbox-ose 1.4.0svn4130-dfsg-1
> that is) without notifying me. In all previous uploads to NEW, I was in
> the co-maintainer.

FWIW, the uploads of virtualbox to NEW were:

    20070618213209|process-unchecked|Moving to new
    20070801121715|process-unchecked|Moving to new
    20070801143204|process-unchecked|Moving to new
    20070802113206|process-unchecked|Moving to new
    20070824113207|process-unchecked|Moving to new

The .dsc from the first 3946-dfsg-1 above (1st August) listed:
  Maintainer: Patrick Winnertz <patrick.winnertz@skolelinux.org>
  Uploaders: Philipp Hug <debian@hug.cx>, Marvin Stark <marv@der-marv.de>

If you weren't involved in the uploads to NEW over the past month to
notice, it seems reasonably fair to say you weren't co-maintaining the
package. If that's something that was just a one month thing, fine;
but it's not the end of the world either way.

    20070830124706|process-unchecked|Moving to new
    20070901080307|process-new|Accepting changes
    20070901194714|process-unchecked|Accepting changes

    20070903134705|process-unchecked|Moving to new
    20070903173435|process-new|Accepting changes
    20070904094702|process-unchecked|Accepting changes

    20070905054704|process-unchecked|Accepting changes
    20070905070206|process-unchecked|Accepting changes

Then doing an upload that goes to a new upstream revision, adds code
which doesn't have a license at all, let alone a DFSG-free one, without
consulting the people you're claiming to be co-maintaining the package
with doesn't sound very impressive either.

> Upstream is generally cooperative and understands the problems, hence I
> see this a bit more relaxed (for the next few days only, until it's
> sorted out). However, if ftp-master do disagree, I'll can re-upload
> 1.4.0, superseeding the 1.5.0 upload.

Personally, I don't think you should be even considering uploading
anything right now -- the above seems to me to have been some pretty bad
judgement calls, and the contents of an Uploaders: field or the lack of
a proper license for something upstream intends to be free software can
all wait for a day or two.

For a package that's been in unstable for under a week to require a
renaming due to trademarks, have a hijack war and thread on -devel,
and start getting new upstream versions with non-DFSG code strikes me
as pretty unimpressive all round, really...


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: