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

Re: Sponsorship requirements and copyright files

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:49:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonas Meurer <jonas@freesources.org> writes:
> > On 21/03/2009 Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:34PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >>> Honestly, if you cant deal with listing the Authors/(C) holders - dont
> >>> maintain a package. It is not much work to list them. (It might be a
> >>> lot of work using the "new" format, but noone *requires* this format,
> >>> especially not ftpmaster. It has *no* gain for us at all, we couldnt
> >>> care less if you use it or not).
> >> You win.
> >> I hereby orphan xulrunner and iceape. As for iceweasel and webkit,
> >> there is a comaintainer on both, so that's up to them.
> > I cannot believe that. Despite deeply appreciating your decision, it
> > makes me very sad to see another complex and important package losing
> > its competent and valuable maintainer.
> > Joerg, please don't you see the consequences of your harsh discussion
> > style? I've quite the feeling that with getting more and more important
> > within debian you get more and more authoritarian as well.  sorry for
> > these straight words. it's not that i wouldn't appreciate your valuable
> > work for debian, but please refrain from exploiting the power you got.
> Personally, I'm rather annoyed at both of them.  There are people in the
> project who are willing to invest time and energy into finding mutually
> agreeable solutions and talking through problems, but if people explode as
> soon as the discussion gets heated and make drastic decisions before
> anyone even has a chance to mediate, what's the point?

In the context of the current discussion, and in the context of my
current work, I *do* have a good reason to explode, *now*.

I just started to work on xulrunner 1.9.1, which will require an upload
through NEW, and I now know that ftpmasters will REJECT the package on
grounds of the debian/copyright file not containing copyright holders
names, nor containing precise licensing information per file. And if
they wouldn't reject it, then that would be pretty lame double-standards.

I'm actually glad it happened now, before I spend tens of hours on that

I do hope things will change, but until then, don't count on me for
anything related to big packages. That will finally give me some time
to finish those zfs-fuse packages...


Reply to: