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

Re: more about Zookeeper [and 1 more messages]

Ted Dunning writes ("Re: more about Zookeeper"):
> If anybody is trying to get assistance from the upstream community, using
> fewer idiosyncratic acronyms might help.

Sorry about that.  This list is normally used for communications
internal to Debian, and perhaps some of the participants are
forgetting that although they may be addressing their fellow direct
contributors to Debian, they're also addressing you - who have a
different perspective and aren't familiar with our terminology.

Normally the Debian maintainer of a particular package would be
responsible for managing the communication with upstream, translating
terminology if necessary, mediating bug reports, etc.

But it seems that in this case the current Debian maintainer is not
happy with the package and wants to stop maintaining it.  This is a
problem internal to Debian and the solution, if any, will come from
within the Debian community.

> And regardless of whether it ever built on MIPS, it clearly should not have
> given that there isn't a 1.6 Java there.

It seems that there is a packaging bug.  That is, the FTBFS (Fails To
Build From Source) bug is a Debian-specific bug, introduced in the
Debian packaging, and not anything to do with your upstream code.

Tollef says that he thinks the bug is RC (Release-Critical) for other
reasons.  In Debian an RC bug is (broadly speaking) one which might
cause the package to be dropped from a release.


Reply to: