[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#681833: marked as done (developers-reference: please document a package salvaging process)

Your message dated Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:49:11 +0000
with message-id <E1g4vCh-0005c6-2D@fasolo.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#681833: fixed in developers-reference 3.4.21
has caused the Debian Bug report #681833,
regarding developers-reference: please document a package salvaging process
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

681833: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681833
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
package: developers-reference
severity: normal
version: 3.4.8
tag: patch


I've prepared an initial draft of a developers reference patch that
would document a package salvaging process.  Please see below.

Best wishes,

--- pkgs.dbk.orig	2012-07-16 18:19:56.065047490 -0400
+++ pkgs.dbk	2012-07-16 18:32:20.626439544 -0400
@@ -2257,6 +2257,86 @@


+<section id="package-salvaging">
+<title>Package Salvaging</title>
+Unfortunately over time, certain maintainers become less active without turning
+over their packages via the orphaning process or fully leaving the project.
+This is a natural process, and there is nothing wrong with it, but in the
+meantime their packages suffer bit-rot and bug reports go unanswered.
+Fortunately the NMU process provides a means to inject much needed health into
+these neglected packages.  This is the liberal NMU.
+Also, at times, there can be situations where contributors would like to modify
+a package for a lower severity bug report, but said bug is ignored for a long
+time by an active maintainer.  If the fix is good, it should certainly go into
+the archive.  This is another case where an NMU is appropriate, but it would
+not be considered a liberal NMU.  These cases can be resolved by are a standard
+10-day NMU, and conflicts can be refered to the technical committee as a
+technical dispute.
+Ideally, the liberal NMU is done by uploading the package of interest to the
+DELAYED/10 queue or greater.
+The liberal NMU is also appropriate in general for fixing bugs, but
for packages
+that have not recieved an upload in greater than six months liberal NMUs are
+highly encouraged and can fix issues that are not tracked in the BTS.  Changing
+the build system in a Liberal NMU is still not acceptable, but all
other changes
+are allowed including packages of new upstream versions.
+A mail for each Liberal NMU should be sent to either the maintainer or the BTS
+(which is automatically forwarded to the maintainer) and should include a
+hyperlink to a VCS containing the changeset of this liberal NMU and all of your
+prior liberal NMUs to this package.  A VCS link is preferred to
+an NMU patch in these cases since long-term if the maintainer does not
+resume activity, you will be making many liberal NMUs and ultimately becoming
+its maintainer.  The message body should maintain a positive
+attitude and mention that the maintainer may review and has the option to
+cancel the NMU while it waits in the upload queue for the next 10 or more days.
+Unfortunately the maintainer may reject some of your contributions that you
+disagree with.  In this case, try to find a way to implement the changes in a
+way that the maintain will approve.  Failing that, please refer the matter as a
+technical disagreement to the technical committee.
+Preferably, after you have demonstrated that you can handle the package, the
+maintainer will either step down or approve you to be a part of the packaging
+team.  If the maintainer has been active or not approved this after an
+additional six months after your first liberal NMU, you may petition the tech
+committee to rule on the maintainership of the package.  Please include as much
+information as possible (including bug reports, uploaded versions, VCS links,
+etc.) to make the committee's decision easy.  If the maintainer at some point
+becomes active, and does not want your participation to continue, you may
+petition either accept that request and step down or petition the tech
+committee to rule on the matter.
+If a package has been already been orphaned, you may salvage it without any
+kind of approval.
+Filing a removal request against ftp.debian.org, then reintroducing the package
+with yourself as the maintainer is considered adversarial and is explicitly

 <section id="collaborative-maint">

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Source: developers-reference
Source-Version: 3.4.21

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
developers-reference, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 681833@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> (supplier of updated developers-reference package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)

Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 23:21:04 +0200
Source: developers-reference
Binary: developers-reference developers-reference-de developers-reference-fr developers-reference-ja developers-reference-ru developers-reference-it
Architecture: source
Version: 3.4.21
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Developers Reference Maintainers <debian-policy@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org>
 developers-reference - guidelines and information for Debian developers
 developers-reference-de - guidelines and information for Debian developers, in German
 developers-reference-fr - guidelines and information for Debian developers, in French
 developers-reference-it - guidelines and information for Debian developers, in Italian
 developers-reference-ja - guidelines and information for Debian developers, in Japanese
 developers-reference-ru - guidelines and information for Debian developers, in Russian
Closes: 681833 879863 907535 907605 908867
 developers-reference (3.4.21) unstable; urgency=medium
   [ Tobias Frost ]
   * Team upload.
   * Fix Alioth references in README-contrib (Closes: #907605)
   * Add package-salvaging text (Closes: #681833, #907535).
   * Move shell snippet in §6.4 to common.ent.
   * Update German translation. (Closes: #908867)
   [ Nicholas D Steeves ]
   * Change priority extra to optional in §6.7.7 (Closes: #879863).
 ca6921080acc2685ee4ec30df92c9d5ed22f186f 2401 developers-reference_3.4.21.dsc
 fb8ffd8e407332c3c31d4e0933adbb9daf7a7065 662040 developers-reference_3.4.21.tar.xz
 6e8913f5490eed60c21697d1eebb2958b60ab881 5658 developers-reference_3.4.21_source.buildinfo
 6aad631876340abb61cfefe64646614662e384f96683c165d7cccd1174edcc6f 2401 developers-reference_3.4.21.dsc
 c088401811702a83a8bebc079fac58c47da9da8da3e7d6e96dc1e39e9fb9007e 662040 developers-reference_3.4.21.tar.xz
 36049a5a27abfe2577fe69d4e5502024cc5ccf02d2c3572c40fc3bf8bf3dc013 5658 developers-reference_3.4.21_source.buildinfo
 3147202685fd1b2d603081dfa117c80e 2401 doc optional developers-reference_3.4.21.dsc
 3c76053d94159add6f5dd6f86953d183 662040 doc optional developers-reference_3.4.21.tar.xz
 31b15b65df7fd490a2c3f8fb05788d29 5658 doc optional developers-reference_3.4.21_source.buildinfo



--- End Message ---

Reply to: