qmail and related packages in NEW
Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
Within a time-frame of six months I received exactly one rejection mail in
response to two uploads of the packages, a reply to the rejection mail,
and three mails asking about the progress because nothing happened.
http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html#nonprogress
Mon, 28 Apr 2008: uploaded packages to ftp-master.
Tue, 03 Jun 2008: no response, asking for progress.
Tue, 17 Jun 2008: no response, asking again.
Sun, 06 Jul 2008: received this REJECT email.
Mon, 01 Sep 2008: uploaded updated packages to NEW, and sent a reply.
Tue, 11 Nov 2008: no response, asking for progress.
Thu, 20 Nov 2008: no response.
Today: still no response.
Lacking any response, I can only guess what the reason for the delay is.
>From my point of view this reason is questionable, and I stated so in my
response to the reject mail. Receiving no response within eight weeks
tells me that discussing doesn't work.
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:36:07PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 02:19:30PM +0000, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we (as
> > in the ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of the
> > opinion that qmail should die, and not receive support from Debian. As
> > such we *STRONGLY* ask you to reconsider uploading those packages.
> >
> > Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even
> > begin to work in the manner expected of a modern MTA. Given this, the
> > fact that this means there is also no upstream security support, and
> > the fact that Debian already contains at least three reasonable MTAs,
> > we see no need to add qmail to the archive. So - please reconsider if
> > it really helps Debian to have those packages. Also feel free to start
> > a public discussion on debian-devel@lists.debian.org about the issue,
> > including any relevant information from this email, in order to gather
> > opinions from other project members.
>
> We all know, I guess, that there's lots of different opinions on the
> quality and usability of qmail. There're people thinking like you, and
> other people, including me, that have a different opinion. I respect
> your opinion, please respect ours too. You're free to not install/use
> the packages. I've been contacted by several people since I announced
> my intention to package qmail, speaking in favor of the inclusion into
> Debian.
>
> A public discussion already took place
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.wnpp/69292/
>
> I think your advise to start a discussion to gather support for the
> packages is backwards. Debian is about free software and users, the
> qmail packages are free software, and users request the inclusion into
> Debian. If you are interested in not having qmail in Debian, you are
> free to start a public discussion to find supporters for your position,
> I guess you'll get some objections too.
I've no idea where yet another thread on this list should take us. To me
the situation is clear. There's a user base for these packages, and a
Debian developer ready to maintain them.
I count at least three Debian developers speaking in favor of the
inclusion, I've been approached by several users asking me to make my
unofficial packages officially available in Debian, another Debian
developer has a package depending on qmail in the NEW queue.
In my opinion, ftpmasters should reject packages on grounds of Debian
policy or (maybe) the Debian body. If they wish a permanent rejection of
qmail and related packages, they should try to find that consensus within
Debian, and, if successful, add that decision to
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
Can you advise me on how to get out of that dilemma?
Thanks, Gerrit.
See
http://bugs.debian.org/457318
http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/sid.html#nonprogress
http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.wnpp/69292/
for all the details.
Reply to: