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

Re: wine-unstable in Debian

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 03:07:54PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> C) Current WINE maintainers are either MIA or time overload elsewhere.  
> Volunteers trying to help who have made additional 1.1.x packages are stuck 
> waiting because they do not have access to the pkg-wine git repo.

Just to nitpick a bit on the above, Cc:-ing the maintainer, which seems
a fair thing to do given the topic of this discussion. The current
maintainer did reply to at least a couple of the inquiries in the buglog
and does not appear to be MIA. He has, however, some specific
requirements on the work that he wants to be done before granting commit
access to the Git repository. That is his prerogative.

Given the nature of Git, others are not blocked from working on the
packaging. (Although I surely won't deny that coordination among all the
other non-maintainers would be easier if they had access to the official
VCS, especially if the people who do have access to it are not active.)

Also, let's keep in mind that VCS commit access in Debian is not a
requirement to modify a package. Our main "VCS" is the Debian archive
and all (uploading) Debian Developers have access to it.

So nobody is "stuck". But if packaging work continue to happens outside
the official VCS and will keep on having troubles being merged into it,
at some point people will probably feel the need to NMU the packages ---
better if with sensible delays that allow for review by others. It would
be preferable to reach a consensual solution before that. But the option
is on the table, as it is for every other package in the archive.

Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: