Re: Debian Maintainer Application for Jose Luis Tallon
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, José Luis Tallón wrote:
> By allowing me to upload more frequently.
Uploading is the very last step, and you usually find sponsor at least for
RC bugs when you mention your need of sponsor in the bug log.
You also have less troubles to find sponsor if you maintain packages
within a team, but it doesn't look like that team maintenance is something
that interest you.
> I am mostly blamed for having very old bugs, yet basically nobody
> answered my request for sponsored uploads on -mentors some months ago.
Document this fact in the corresponding bug reports then. It will help
your find sponsors.
> > 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.
I saw that you failed to add a simple Conflicts: line and I just told you
that the Conflicts: is a poor work-around and that I haven't seen you
taking any step to work out the issue at the upstream level.
> 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.
This bug log is impressive indeed. You have been explained what the right
approach is, and yet, you uploadeds two times the same restriction to
only two architectures...
We do have porter lists where you can ask for help and/or maybe access to
some non-x86 machines even if you're not DD.
> 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.
I saw a patch in that bug log. Why hasn't it been considered ?
> * 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.
You could fix the watch file (you have a bug with a patch), update the
standards-version (and doing corresponding changes if necessary) and fix
the man page to point where the documentation really is.
> * Picwiz -- same here
Same here, 2 bugs with patches.
> 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.
You can use experimental for newer versions which are not yet ready in
your opinion.
> > ... 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.
That's fine. But if you want to do that within Debian you'll have to match
the level of quality that we strive for all Debian packages.
> ... because I cannot upload updated versions frequently enough, due to a
> lack of sponsors.
Lack of sponsors is a pita but it's doesn't happen alone to someone who
managed to integrate their packages in Debian already.
> > 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.
Then maintain your current packages correctly. You'll find DD ready to
sponsor you (possibly those that commented in your bug reports) if you fix
the problem the way they told you to do it...
> 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?
Because we don't want to continue on this trend of lowering Debian's
quality.
> 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.
I can't respond to this, we never tried to orphan them.
> 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.
I'm also the sole upstream for logidee-tools which is the reason why I
couldn't move the package to co-maintenance... I'm entirely responsible of
the fact that this software is not further developed.
BTW, you missed dpkg-ftp as package that I'm alone maintaining.
And the fact that all my other packages are co-maintained is rather a good
thing IMO. If you were working within a few teams, you would not appear
as one of those maintainers who:
- do not listen to what other DD have to say
- do not use VCS to make sure that nobody else is goind to propose them
some help
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: