Bug#948099: RFS Not Needed
Hallo Michael,
I have to chime in as I probably encouraged Phil for this RFS.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 22:26:35 -0600 Michael Lustfield <
michael@lustfield.net> wrote:
> Thanks for your interest contributing to Debian.
>
> Unfortunately, the packages you built are not DFSG-free and have
additional
> problems that would prevent them from being included in Debian. Check
out the
> lintian warnings, ideally with "lintian -EviIL +pedantic *.changes".
> typically does a good job predicting whether or not a package will
find a
> sponsor and/or pass NEW.
This is actually the reason why we have the sponsoring process to help
people understanding the processes and requirements of contributiong to
Debian. We do not expect, especially on new contributors that they know
everything from the first upload already. Frankly, imho, your language
is not well suited to encourage new contributors....
Looking at the packages, the lintian situation is not that bad, I have
seen worse even in the archives.
imho the correct procedure would have been to mark this bug "wontfix"
or "moreinfo" as per https://wiki.debian.org/Mentors/BTS. Closing it
seems a bit rough.
> Fortunately, these packages are already present in Debian and are
being
> actively maintained. If you would like to contribute, you should
reach out to
> the current maintainer to discuss collaborative maintenance.
The maintainer chimed in in #947270#30 saying that he would appreciate
help because of ETIME.
Depending on
> their time, they may be willing to review/sponsor your updates to the
> package.
>
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/filezilla
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libfilezilla
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gnome-maps
(I did not find a RFS for the last one)
>
> FWIW-
> I noticed that this is not the first time you've submitted this sort
of bug.
>
> You should be aware that working *with* the current maintainer is the
ideal way
> to begin contributing to a maintained packages. An NMU (non-
maintainer upload)
> is one of those last resort options, typically reserved for
unreachable
> maintainers or urgent issues.
You saw that Phil was doing an Team Upload? Both packages are in the
debian namepsace on salsa, thus a team upload is completly in order.
[1]
(Of course it is always good to talk to each other.)
[1]
https://wiki.debian.org/Salsa/Doc#Collaborative_Maintenance:_.22Debian.22_group
> When you don't work with the package maintainer and instead just try
to build
> updates and have others upload, it circumvents said maintainer. Ths
is why
> this particular type of behavior is often seen as an attempt at a
"hostile
> takeover" of the package.
Neither of the both packages has a change in maintainer ship recorded,
so there is no package hijacking. It is a team upload as documented in
the changelog.
Of course a question to ask in the RFS is, espescially if there are
bigger changes, are if the sponsoree have checked with the recorded
maintainer and in best case to establish a link between them. At least
this is what I would have done while marking the bug "moreinfo"
> I'm sure that wasn't you're intention and suspect you're attempting
to follow
> a process for packages that are not yet in Debian. In most cases, if
you didn't
> file an ITP, you won't be filing an RFS.
>
--
tobi
Reply to: