Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
Ian Jackson dixit:
>There is QA work on the many packages with no specific maintainer;
Sure, in that case I’ll have to take it over or deal with it.
>there are cross-archive campaigns such as reproducible builds,
>architecture support, init system diversity, i18n/l10n, and so on.
These are done by specialists. I didn’t say *nobody* would need
to learn the others, just that not *everyone* needs, especially
not at first.
>There is RC bugfixing etc. to try to make a release. There is
This is either a good learning chance, or just tackle an RC bug
in another package.
>security support, stable release management, and backports.
Again, specialists.
>Well, Sam posed a consultation here on debian-devel. My assessment of
>the rough consensus of the discussion here is very similar to Sam's.
My point was to raise concerns of mine.
>Do you agree with Sam's assessment of the apparent consensus on this
>list ?
I’ve not read the entire discussion here. I stumbled upon this
by reading the DPL news and thus posted because I feared that
the point important to me might be underrepresented.
>Since it is a question of tradeoffs, with no definite right or wrong
>answer, perhaps we should hold a GR ? What do you think the result of
>such a GR would be ?
Hmm, did not consider it, but a GR could fight being forced to
use dh7 if needed. Thanks for the idea.
>You may be gently encouraged to change your packages. In practice if
>you refuse, it is not likely that anyone will want to fight you over
>it. You will probably be able to leave the bug open "wontfix", if
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps, if that’s acceptable, it’ll be enough.
>there is a bug at all, indefinitely.
If. If it isn’t, leaving it wontfix or closing is guaranteed to be
acceptable. If it is, some clarification that it is acceptable is
needed or we’re entering vague territories (such as, where people
who don’t like a maintainer file RM requests against their packages
because they don’t follow this-and-that latest fad).
>So, nothing will be forced onto you and you do not need to fight this.
If optimistic, yes.
>But I would like you to consider this: the primary responsibility of
>the maintainer of a Debian package is a *management* responsibility.
Oh sure. But I just want to make the world better by packaging some
software for Debian, some of which I happen to be upstream of, some
of which I happen to have become upstream because of packaging it.
I occasionally join in teams, but mostly just wish to quietly do my
thing, undisturbed.
>But our one un-shirkable responsibility is that of creating an
>environment where *others* can contribute.
Oh, sorry, but, I disagree. Others can contribute in other packages,
I can do mine just fine. (Of course, the occasional contribution is
welcome, but I’m not going to bend my ways for it.)
Just like when I contribute somewhere, I’m, sometimes extremely rudely,
asked to take my problem (or even patch) upstream myself or go sod off.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
<igli> exceptions: a truly awful implementation of quite a nice idea.
<igli> just about the worst way you could do something like that, afaic.
<igli> it's like anti-design. <mirabilos> that too… may I quote you on that?
<igli> sure, tho i doubt anyone will listen ;)
Reply to: