Re: Bug#218466: Please add animals-game to your package
Hi all,
well, first I'd like to apologize to everyone involved so far. I didn't mean
to make this such a mess. After all, it's really a minor contribution, as Ben
already pointed out.
My intention was simply to provide a better replacement for animals. Since
this program is still officially orphaned, despite the statement of Jim Lynch
(maintainer of animals), I just thought that it would be alright to write a
similar game.
> > * Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca> [2003-10-31 23:19]:
> > > There is no maintainer for animals. It belongs to the QA group. So
> > > can't it just be killed and replaced with animals-game?
Well, that's exactly what I thought in the first place. Please bear in mind
that this is the first _new_ package I added to Debian. So I wasn't aware of
the process. I filed an ITP, and although Martin objected shortly afterwards,
the package was uploaded. That's certainly my fault, because I didn't tell my
sponsor about the objection on time. After that, I was pretty sure that this
package would be rejected, because the automated mail told me, that every new
package must be added manually.
Unfortunately, the whole debate animals vs. animals-game wasn't noticed by the
person who allowed animals-game to go into unstable. In a conversation with
Martin I proposed to file a bug against ftp.debian.org to remove
animals-game. Martin said, that I should let it rest there for a while, now
that it's gone into unstable. He wanted to have things sorted out before the
release and decide whether to include animals or animals-game.
Therefore, I waited until animals-game reached testing. After all, I didn't
want to do any further steps without being sure that animals-game would be
releasable.
It was just yesterday that I noticed the migration of animals-game from
unstable to testing, so I wrote this bug report to have it included in the
junior-games-text package.
My next step was meant to be (and now certainly _will_ be) to send a mail to
the O: bug of animals and the maintainer, to tell about this _releasable_ and
up-to-date package with a (in my opinion) better replacement.
Moreover, I've had very positive feedback about the program, and even a
translation into Polish was sent to me only one day after animals-game hit
unstable. That's why I felt confident about my doing.
[Martin Michlmayr]
> > The animals "maintainer" claims he's still the maintainer. It told
> > Tobias repeatedly that he should talk to the animals maintainer to get
> > this sorted out, but he obviously isn't interested in the right
> > solution.
Well, I definitely am. As I pointed out, I wanted to have animals-game in
testing before I proceeded with any further steps. If this is the Wrong Thing
in your opinion, you should have been clearer about what you want me to do in
our private conversation. I thought it should rest a while in the archives
and then I should sort this issue out with the maintainer of animals. I still
think it's the best way to be sure that a package goes into testing without
problems before doing any further steps.
[Ben Armstrong]
> Crap, I just read #202174 from top to bottom. I'm inclined to include
> neither until the whole mess is sorted out. I don't want to be in the
> middle of it. It's a minor contribution to junior-games-text, anyway.
>
> Tobias, I wish you had been up front to me about this issue.
I'm really sorry about that, Ben. Hope I've made things a little bit clearer
with this mail.
--
Tobias
Don't you just hate it when there's not enough room to fin
Reply to: