Hello Dmitry, Janos, others, On Mon 23 Mar 2020 at 05:32PM +11, Dmitry Smirnov wrote: > Something interesting just happened. An inexperienced DD adopted a very > complicated package (kubernetes) and uploaded it with changes that would have > never been accepted by ftp-masters. Specifically, as README.Debian states, the vendor/ subdirectory of the source package contains more than two hundred Go libraries. I can't speak for the whole FTP Team here, but if this had ended up in NEW and I had been the FTP Team member to review it, I would indeed have rejected it, on the grounds that accepting the upload renders Debian less maintaintable in various ways. > What would be best to do in such situation? I think that I would start by filing an RC bug. > The problem is not with DD's qualification (although this certainly plays a > role) but with intentional non-compliance with policies and packaging > practices. > > As a person who originally introduced Kubernetes to Debian I can say that it > is indeed a lot of work to maintain this package and to reuse packaged > libraries. But I've demonstrated that it is possible at least to some extent. > > New maintainer of kubernetes do not even make an attempt to build it properly > and blatantly states the following in README which demonstrates profound lack > of understanding of problems that were impairing maintenance of the package: > > "I kindly ask purist aspirations that effectively halted Kubernetes' > release and updates in Debian for YEARS to be kept at bay." The new maintainer presumably thinks that Policy should have an exception for this sort of case -- let's assume good faith. > I don't consider myself to be a purist. I have pragmatic approach to > packaging but I feel concerned when policies and packaging practices are > circumvented. > > I don't recall a situation when policing of how a package is maintained would > be necessary long after package is accepted... > What do we do to ensure quality work in situation of technological hijack > when maintainer is unwilling to follow the practice or comply with policy? > > This is not a technical disagreement so I think that involving technical > committee may not be the right way to handle the problem... Or is it? I think it counts as a technical disagreement but surely there is room for discussion in a bug report before involving the T.C. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature