Re: What to do when DD considers policy to be optional? [kubernetes]
Ehm... perhaps we should practice some de-escalation techniques, please. :/
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 13:55:50 +1100
Dmitry Smirnov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 25 March 2020 6:08:23 AM AEDT Janos LENART wrote:
> > Debian Policy, paragraph 4.13 states:
> There are several problems with how you did it too. You did not use anyone's
> advise, ignored Salsa repository, threw away _everything_ and made no effort
> to understand how and why things were implemented, let alone appreciated
> prior work or tried to improve it. What you did is technological hijack of
> the package, a gross violation of practices.
> Imagine I'll upload a package to NEW, get in reviewed and accepted for what
> it is then re-upload as something entirely different bundled with 500+
> dependencies that were not reviewed then claim that policy allows it?
I missed this earlier...
With regard to the kubernetes package, I don't see anything to indicate it was
abandoned. I'll also assume that the current maintainer (Dmitry) was not
contacted by Janos. Considering how quickly this started after the upload, this
seems like a safe bet.
Janos- If that's correct, then this would indeed be considered a "hostile
takeover" of the package. It would be nice to assume that this was simple
oversight of forgotten communication.
No matter the actual facts- please remember how important communication is to
So... with Dmitry still active in Debian and still holding interest in the
package, the path forward seems obvious, doesn't it? One person is interested
in maintaining the package per our standards, and another is interested in
getting it updated.