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

Re: more about Zookeeper


Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes:
> Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In any case, it is a bit strong language to blame code quality for a
>> build system configuration error.
> Quality code should detect that the build configuration is wrong
> before the build itself actually fails. If the code requires a version
> higher than one which is likely to already exist, quality code would
> check that the old version is handled with a useful message. It
> shouldn't require detailed knowledge of that package.

And to check against too new versions as well. And not suddenly fail to
build when the compiler becomes a bit stricter. Which leaves us with not
too much quality code in Debian ;)

>> Also, nobody seems to have contacted the actual project maintainers
>> about this problem. Your comments about lack of motivation are also
>> somewhat ad hominem (and incorrect).
> It's simply that if the bug isn't fixed, the package will be removed.
> I've said before, I don't care about the detail of this package. It's
> up to those who do care to see about getting upstream involved,
> whether that's the current maintainer or someone else if he doesn't
> respond.
>> > Irrespective of disagreements with the current maintainer, zookeeper is
>> > not good enough for Debian stable simply because it has a separate
>> > release-critical bug. #626020 - FTBFS on mips. There is no argument
>> > about this - failing to build from source on a supported architecture
>> > means, by definition, that the software is not of sufficient quality for
>> > Debian. End of.
>> >
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=626020
> That summary is still accurate.

No. The package could as well just drop support for architectures that
do not have Java 1.6 (mips switched from openjdk-6 back to gcj according
to default-jdk-common's changelog).  kfreebsd-* also only has Java 1.5.

>> > As such, I would disagree strongly with the statement that ZK is not
>> > of sufficient quality to be included in Debian.
>> > The RC bug argues differently and, in Debian, the RC bug is always more
>> > persuasive than protests from interested parties who lack the time or
>> > motivation to actually fix the problem.
> This is a general point about other arguments where "interested
> parties" are vocal but not able to actually change the issue itself.
> Someone needs to actually fix the package, not just complain at those
> who simply state the reality of how an RC bug will be handled if not
> fixed. If no-one steps up, for reasons of motivation or whatever else,
> then the package will be removed. It's quite simple really, the
> package isn't good enough to be in Debian if this bug is left unfixed.
> Someone fixes it, I'll be happy. Until then, protests without action
> will make absolutely no difference.

The "interested party" might also not know how packages are maintained
in Debian.  And I don't think it is helpful to "threaten" upstream with
removal of his software from Debian, certainly not in the first answer.
Please be a bit less aggressive.

But you are right that there are already too many packages in unstable
that could not migrate to testing for ages as they have RC bugs open[1]
and nobody seems to care...


[1] <http://release.debian.org/migration/oldest.html>

Reply to: