Re: DM advocation for Martin-'Eric Racine
On 11/27/07, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:40:35AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On 11/26/07, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 12:25:10PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
> > > > I'd like to advocate Martin-'Eric Racine <email@example.com> for DM.
> > > > He is already under NM, T&S stage
> > > > (https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=q-funk%40iki.fi).
> > > [...]
> > > > I believe his knowledge about packaging is well enough as Debian
> > > > maintainer
> > > Can you tell me if you have reason to believe his knowledge of packaging has
> > > improved since the time at which bugs #384364 and #409356 were filed?
> > Steve, turning previous disagreements over those bugs into excuses is
> > not gonna do.
> This is not about "disagreements", these are examples of serious mistakes
> you've made. We all make mistakes, what I want to know is whether you've
> learned from yours.
> A person who introduces a root hole in a package by setting a binary setuid
> root without any peer review (including from upstream) should not be allowed
> archive upload access.
There in fact WAS peer review of this code. There WAS an audit which
in fact has resulted in an upstream rewrite. This was already pointed
out to you.
> A person who ignores pointers to failed build logs when they are handed to
> him and insists instead that his package has no release-critical bugs should
> not be allowed archive upload access.
As reported back then, I could not reproduce that failure to build. It
took several days until the Python transition had completed and
required dependencies had trickled down to Testing, at which point I
could finally reproduce the issue and fix it.
> Are you still that person?
I think that my recent uploads speak a lot more than those old
mistakes you dug out. Please check them.