Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:43:27PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:20:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > And actually, what i intented to say was that there where three points which
> > > > made me consider this a good time to post, not a proposal, but a request for
> > > > comment from our DPL and ftp-master about the subject.
> > > As DPL, all I've got to say is NEW policy is a matter for ftpmasters
> > Sure, but i guess i will ask you the same question in next years campaign :)
>
> Sven, the reason people get annoyed at you and dislike working with you
> is that you keep asking the same question in hopes that the answer will
> somehow change. You've got your answer, you don't need to ask again.
No, i got _NO_ANSWER_, and i keep asking in hopes that you actually give an
answer, whatever it is. And again, here, you are not responding to the actual
questions. Especially as your current reasoning fully contradict with what you
said in your DPL plateform. I guess this means that Mike wass right after all,
and i sure think this is something that will need to surface again if ever you
re-present yourself as DPL.
> > Given that, the real question is one of confiance. Which do you believe of the
> > kernel team or the ftp-masters, are more competent to know what sub-package
> > and abi change revision are adequate ?
>
> I don't believe it's appropriate to give either group authority to do
> so on their own. Adding packages to the archive is an appropriate point
> to have a second person review what's going on; that applies to packages
> maintained by ftpmasters too.
I agree with you on source packages, but change in the kernel abi-names or
introduction of new binary packages for the same source package having to wait
like it does is nonsense.
> > any random maintainer, but the kernel team is handled by competent and
> > reasonable,
>
> Which random maintainers are you saying are neither competent nor reasonable?
I don't know, those the ftp-masters invoke in order to justify the strict
control over the admittance of new binary packages and name changes in debian ?
> Furthermore, I know I've spoken with a number of developers who don't
> think you can be relied upon to handle things "reasonably", so even if
Yeah, and i would much like that you back such diffamation with actual proof
of me mishandling my responsabilities. And no, behaviour on debian mailing
list has no relationship whatsoever with responsabilities in package upload. I
have never done any harm in package upload (except once in early 99 when i
NMUed X because it didn't build on powerpc, and got the immediate backlash you
can imagine), as i never did any harm with my debian-installer commit right.
I now expect you to step down from this diffamatory accusation, and apologize
for it, if you have any self-honesty, or at least back your words with actual
facts.
> that were a sufficient condition to automatically approve NEW packages --
> which it isn't -- I'm not convinced it even applies here.
So, because people are angry with me because of my email communication
methods, any of my arguments should be dismissed without thought as you did ?
You do notice that this leaves me only one recourse, so this is hardly the
smartest thing to do on your part.
> > And i would like a real answer to this question, not an authoritative
> > non-reply like you did last time.
>
> Sven, the only thing that will satisfy you is complete compliance with
> your demands -- you've made that clear in the way you've treated disputes
> with the d-i team recently, and in other cases in the past. That isn't
> going to happen, so there's really not much point worrying about what
> other things you want -- you're going to be upset and complaining no
> matter what happens.
Well, you could try it and give a reply. Also, i have to say that from past
flamewar with you, that you are also prone to the exact same problem, go read
your own emails.
So, i ask you now a direct question. You said something in your DPL plateform,
which you clearly reject now, or refuse to answer any question concerning how
this applies to a real world case ? So, the question is :
Anthony, did you deliberately lie in your DPL elections like any good
politician in order to be elected, or where you not aware that your own
actions and position would contradict this point of your plateform ?
Or, you could give a true answer to what i am asking.
> Every single NEW package gets a manual check to see if it's reasonable.
Indeed, which means that only the ftp-masters can thrusted to judge what
'reasonable' means, not withstanding that they may have little clue about the
subject, and that the actual team who does the actual work about it is just
some kind of sub-DD ?
> That's the policy; it's not going to change because we need manual
> checks to ensure things don't get out of hand -- archive size, number
> of packages, consistency of packaging, etc -- and this is a sensible
> place to do it. If it's causing you problems, there are three solutions:
> prepare your NEW packages in advance of them becoming necessary, eg
> by uploading to experimental, so that the loss of time happens earlier
> when it doesn't matter; reduce the importance and freuqency of your NEW
> packages so that the delays cause less problems; or if the NEW packages
> are an important issue for the distro as a whole, work with the ftpmaster
> team to work out other ways of minimising the delays.
Yeah, that is the status quo, but you still didn't reply to me why this is
needed for new binary packages of the same source package, or abi-name
renaming of the kernel packages, and futurly all the out-of-tree modules.
> Complaining on the lists, and saying that NEW checking isn't needed for
> your packages might be fun, but isn't going to be effective.
My packages, right, i hope the rest of the kernel team doesn't feel offended
by the way you fully ignore them :)
Now, if i where to rennounce my position as a member of the kernel team, would
htis change your opinion on this ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: