On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:43:35 -0700 Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@kinias.org> wrote: > scripsit Cyril Brulebois: > [...] > > The Right Thing to do is to contact the maintainers first. And it is not > > like the Games Team were totally unresponsive, especially when it comes > > to handling copyright-related problems (see Miriam's — in particular but > > not only — incredible work bugging upstreams to clarify their license / > > consider relicensing). > > > > > > is to do a non-DD NMU and let the Games Team sponsor it if they > > > > want... it seemed silly to duplicate the work. > > > > What about letting the team some time to react and fix its package? > [...] > > Hey Games Team, > > I'm sorry about the confusion here. Neil's perplexing hostility toward > me seems unfortunately to have set the tone for discussion. Not at all. I have no hostility to you or anyone else on this list or any other public list to which I post. I can't help it if you see something that does not exist, except to put the record straight that you must be mistook. No wonder you are perplexed. > 1) I'm not a DD so I can't _really_ do an NMU. (I guessed that much.) > I made an NMU package > for my own personal use, fixing the problems I identified. (Something I do myself - rough and ready packages that are nowhere near release, but the patches always go to the BTS.) The only reason to upload packages to mentors.debian.net is to request sponsoring - if your changes are just patches and not a request to take over or start maintenance of the package yourself then all I can say is that you made the wrong choice. I see no need to upload the package anywhere, the BTS is quite sufficient for patches, NMU's or any other change to a package where the maintainer of the package is not going to change. > I filed > bugs, assigning severity as I understood was appropriate (and I stand by > assigning Serious severity to violating policy MUSTs). The I uploaded > my package to mentors.debian.net and sent e-mails mentioning that it was > there, and that if they wanted to the Games Team could simply sponsor > the upload -- or do whatever they wanted to with it. Doesn't the Games Team have a team packaging mailing list? > I specifically did > _not_ request to have anyone else sponsor the upload; that would have > been grossly inappropriate and I am displeased to think that anyone > should have thought that was my objective. Now that's clearer - a lot clearer than the original request which was, IMHO, overly casual and omitted lots of relevant data. > 2) I could have posted three separate patches to the three bugs I'd > filed -- or I could just upload a package from which the maintainer > could do a quick diff and see what's there. I thought making a > ready-to-upload package available might ease the workload on the Games > Team -- but only, of course, if the Team accepted it. Generally, patches to the BTS are the established way and for good reason. Getting patches back out of a .diff.gz is not nice, it isn't regarded as being helpful; it is regarded as being obtuse, awkward or just plain mistaken. Just think that not everyone prepares or handles patches as you do in the package so prising each patch out of the whole .diff.gz is usually a complete waste of time. There is a reason why Policy specifies that patches are uploaded to the BTS and that they reside there for some time period before an upload. > Again, I'm sorry about the confusion. I'm just trying to be helpful :) I'd suggest sticking to multiple patches to multiple bugs next time. Saves a lot of hassle. Honest. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpQwE6spWi2F.pgp
Description: PGP signature