[jmtd@debian.org: Bug#870635: mutt package is not using the official mutt tarball]
[ I screwed up CCing this in the first place ]
----- Forwarded message from Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> -----
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 16:46:21 +0000
From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
To: Antonio Radici <antonio@debian.org>
Cc: 870635@bugs.debian.org, Kevin McCarthy <kevin@8t8.us>
Subject: Bug#870635: mutt package is not using the official mutt tarball
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Bcc: Subject: Re: Bug#870635: mutt package is not using the official mutt
tarball
Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <20171111074105.iz5bje4kgkl3qsp2@cherubino.dyne.org>
CCing -devel because I think this might be of wider interest.
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 07:41:05AM +0000, Antonio Radici wrote:
Sorry for the delay, my plan of action is to stop packaging neomutt with this
name, I'll create a new neomutt package (TBD by end of the month) and I'll think
if there is the need of a transitional package, the problem of a transitional
package is that mutt won't be packaged as mutt in stretch. To prevent that from
happening we will need two packages (mutt and neomutt) from two different
upstream sources.
So far the only thing which is certainly going to happen is the creation of the
neomutt package, then I could package the newest mutt as 'mutt' and think about
whether mutt needs to become a transitional package (which in that case will
remove mutt).
I think there are a facts you should seriously consider before
continuing with this approach.
Firstly, the existing package is neomutt, but called mutt. So the
existing package users are neomutt users, and the existing reported bugs
are bugs in neomutt. (The wisdom of having moved the package *to*
neomutt at this point is irrelevant, because it has happened whether we
like it or not.) If you are suggesting that the package name "mutt" is
going to be real "mutt" in future, then what happens to existing
users? What are their expectations? Do you reassign all existing bugs to
a new neomutt package name? Do you attempt to triage all bugs to figure
out whether they apply to one, the other, or both? Would users who are
using neomutt features not find the change to be a regression from their
point of view?
Secondly, is there a need for both mutt and neomutt in Debian? Our
mission is not to package every piece of software on earth, but to build
a useful operating system. Is there sufficient distinction between the
two, from a user's perspective, that there is a genuine need for both in
the archive? (Of course, the distinction is very important for the
authors of the software. But that's not the same thing.) For enough
users to justify the work? I've been a daily mutt (and now neomutt) user
in Debian for nearly 20 years, and I don't think there is.
Thirdly, let's look honestly at how well the existing package maintenance
is working. This particular issue was raise in late June[1], and you
said at the time that'd you have come up with a transition plan within a
couple of weeks[2]. For my pet neomutt bug[3] (which coincidentally I
reported at around the same time) you expected to have the patch applied
shortly, possibly even within a week[4], but it remains unfixed.
I am not trying to criticise your personal contributions to Debian. We
are all volunteers, and we all do what we can and nobody should expect
more from us than we are prepared or able to give. I am extremely
grateful for the work you have done and continue to do. But I think it's
important to communicate as realistically as possible what we are able
to do. I am very guilty of getting this wrong, and over-promising and
under-delivering for my own efforts in Debian. I simply wish to point
out that the existing Mutt packaging team appears to be stretched. It
seems to me that having two mutt packages to manage is only going to
make this situation much worse.
[1] https://marc.info/?l=mutt-users&m=149886522430053&w=2
[2] https://marc.info/?l=mutt-users&m=149889708628480&w=2
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866366
[4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866366#24
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
----- End forwarded message -----
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Reply to: