Re: Debian Maintainer Application for Jose Luis Tallon
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, José Luis Tallón wrote:
>> After more than four years in NM, it is high time I stopped
>> buggying my usual sponsors for minor updates to the packages I maintain.
> I wonder how becoming DM will help you handle your packages better.
By allowing me to upload more frequently.
I am mostly blamed for having very old bugs, yet basically nobody
answered my request for sponsored uploads on -mentors some months ago.
> You have currently two very old RC bugs (#411070, #400066)
The problem with libsieve2(#411070) is awaiting an upload, which hasn't
occured yet. And this fact is documented in the bug report.
Regarding lcdproc(#400066), as it happens:
- upstream recommended to restrict building to just PC hardware (i.e. x86)
- vorlon considers this unacceptable (reasons given, I agree)
- new upstream (0.5.2) uploaded, to test other changes
- Marc Brockschmidt reopened the bug
- On May 1st I asked for help regarding PPC; no answer so far.
I still don't know how having a package working perfectly on two arches
is worse than having a package unable to migrate to testing because a
supposedly-RC bug is reopened.
I did ask for advice and/or help w.r.t. building on PPC, which I cannot
fix myself -- and got no anwers.
> and several
> packages waiting on new upstream versions (libtrash, #397924 without
> answer from you). Quite a few bugs have patches sitting in the BTS for
> very long. Several of your packages have not had an update since etch.
* baghira will have no new upstream versions again. Yet it works
wonderfully with KDE3 and many people (including me) use it daily. Shall
I upload simply to have a more recent upload? There are no conflicts
with the Policy AFAICS, so simply uploading to have a nicer
"Standards-Version" makes no sense.
* Picwiz -- same here
* bison++ -- currently I am upstream (and about to drop it too). Now new
versions for years, but some people reportedly still use it.
* kwirelessmonitor -- useful, but stagnating. I know people that
actively use it.
Libtrash is a different thing altogether. Upstream dissappeared for a
while. Newer versions produced some compilation problems last time I
looked at it. Considering that there are indeed quite some people using
it, I'd better let them have a version they can use rather than none.
There are no other bug reports here.
> In #411070, I haven't seen any contact between you and the other concerned
> maintainer. Furthermore you're waiting for a package split from the other
> maintainer but you're also claiming that both packages have a different
> API/ABI so the proper solution is to get one of the two upstream to rename
> their library. And I haven't seen any indication that you are working
> towards this...
> Instead I read ...
>> My continuing work towards helping create the best OS for our users is
>> also reflected in my outstanding WNPP bugs.
> ... implying that you're planning to take on more
INDEED. If nobody else cares about some particular packages, I will keep
them... if only because my work depends on them.
> while you're not able to cope well with the packages that you already have.
... because I cannot upload updated versions frequently enough, due to a
lack of sponsors.
> This makes me wonder if you're really aware of the level of quality that
> we expect from maintainers.
I am perfectly aware, thanks, Raphael.
While I actually hate this argument, I must point out that there are
"full-fledged" developers which a very poor job on their packages and
nobody seems to care. Why am I special?
After four years in NM and several dozen upstream versions, it is quite
clear that I am indeed interested in maintaining those packages... and
apparently nobody else is interested enough.
BTW, the only package you are solely responsible for, logidee-tools, has
several bugs which are five years old. Judging from that alone, you
would be a very bad maintainer (which I don't imply you are)... please
don't judge lightly.