Re: Unauthorised activity surrounding tbb package
Steven,
While being in terrible position to tell you what you should or should
not do, I'd still suggest you to read:
https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct
https://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Steven Capper <steven.capper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mathieu,
> I'm writing to express my increasing frustration at activities you've
> instigated surrounding the tbb package that I maintain.
The wording 'frustration' is very accurate, see below.
> Over the Christmas period a bug report was raised:
> #773359 "package tbb_4.2~20140122-4 FTBFS on mips and mipsel"
>
> and answered by yourself:
> "While I do understand the bug severity, our intention with Steve
> Capper was to only support upstream arch."
Right, I did comment on the bug, which felt as if I had impersonate
you. Please also mention, this bug dates from Dec 17, and you've not
made any comment on an RC bug since.
> Whilst I may agree with your sentiments, we have had no discussion
> over #773359; your response is effectively placing words in my mouth
> and I will not tolerate that. To confound matters, I wasn't even CC'ed
> in on the response!
Again, this is very sorry, you did not include our private emails
surrounding #752820 (Jun 26). If I remember correctly I've sent you
multiple requests to have #752820 be fixed ASAP.
With your Makefiles talent, you quickly closed (Aug 21), thanks again
very much for this.
However this is where I failed to understand the following: why didn't
you request an unblock request at that point ? You knew Nov 5th was
coming quickly.
> Then there's:
> #775506 "unblock: tbb/4.2~20140122-4"
> and,
> #775263 "RM: tbb [s390x mips mipsel] -- ANAIS; #768040"
>
> Both of which have been raised without any discussion with me; I am
> the maintainer for tbb!
While I do agree with you that I should not have requested 775506
without contacted you first. Here is a linearized history of what
happen:
1)
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=775262
RM: openvdb [mipsel sparc] -- ANAIS; #768040
Before you were tbb maintainer I had to work on tbb fixed to have the
openvdb test suite to work on POWER arch. Therefore I'd appreciate
that only proper arches are available in tbb for any dependie package
to work correctly (openvdb maintainer hat on).
Now if you read this report, you'll think this is fairly dumb, since
there is only two options: source upload which will go against #773359
at some point. Or as clarified a couple of minutes ago:
block 775262 by 775263
2)
Which leads to 775263 you mentionned above as me stepping on your
shoes. It happens to me a lot that a bug is reported in my package,
but quickly discover that the bug is within an underlying package.
This is *exactly* what happen, I even clarified this with my `block`
request. I do believe this was my right for 775263 to do so.
> The technical work is hard enough, and I'm new to Debian and am
> learning the ropes still; it is not helpful to keep me in the dark
> over my own package.
This is exactly what was depicted in our private emails surrounding
#752820, and this was also my *assomption* when you uploaded it in Aug
but never requested an unblock request.
So as said above, this is an incorrect assumption, and I should not
have reported this unblock request. However as explained above this
adds extra work for package depending on tbb since mips* and s390x are
non-functional on this arches (IMHO, again I am not tbb maintainer,
simply a tbb user)
> I appreciate that you are trying to help, but I cannot maintain this
> package whilst continually looking over my shoulder. I welcome help,
> but I must insist that maintainer related tasks surrounding tbb are
> discussed with me before they are instigated.
Since our discussion about #752820, you've never ever mentionned this.
So I (incorrectly) assumed you appreciated my help on bug triaging.
> [ I've CC'ed in debian-devel@lists.debian.org, as this is the second
> time I've had to bring this sort of thing up with you. ].
You've forgotten to mentionned I deeply appologized for this (I know
you received the email, since you answered it).
I'd like to mention that so far I already had three legitimate unblock
requests refused, so I would really appreciate if you could clarify
your position on what arches should be available for tbb in jessie.
In turn I understand that I should have stopped right after #775263,
and never fill #775506 without your consent first. However as
explained above, please clarify your position on tbb's arches, and
mention you've never sent a single email to either me or the BTS about
this.
Regards
-M
Reply to: