Re: more about Zookeeper
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> 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.
Eh, I'd say the mess started when somehow upstream thought a bug about a
Debian package that is not good enough for Debian stable was actually
about the upstream code nor being good enough, replied accordingly, and
people thought he WAS talking about the package... things got really
confusing after that.
Well, talking about this won't fix the package, nor provide it with
skilled Debian Maintainer power to see it through Squeeze.
So, someone that cares about zookeeper in Debian and has the necessary
skills to maintain the Debian package, please step in to help the current
maintainer. He *DID* request help, there is a open RFH in WNPP.
At least an upload fixing #626020 would be in order, now that upstream
took a look at it and promptly came up with the reason it was borking in
MIPS, and once he told us the root cause, it took me about 10 seconds to
figure out why the packaging let it happen. I won't NMU it, though: it
is best done either by the maintainer, or by someone who understands
well Debian java packaging.
I don't see why zookeeper should be removed from unstable in the near
future, as long as someone does an upload to fix #626020. It does us no
harm at all to keep it around in unstable for now.
#602694 needs to stay open and blocking zookeeper from Squeeze until it
has a maintainer team that is confident they will be able to handle the
stable support and also confident that the package is good enough
(actually that it WILL be good enough by the time we freeze Squeeze) for
the next Debian stable.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot