Re: unauthorized upload of xfree86 4.3.0-1 to unstable
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:01:31AM +1100, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
> >The primary purpose of this mail is to prompt a discussion of what we as
> >a Project should do in the general case of surprise uploads of this
> >nature which are, again, neither hijacks nor NMUs, but have some
> >features of both.
> For a start, uploads by non [co-]maintainers could be held for manual
> processing or rejected outright (except where uploaded in accordance
> with NMU policy of the delay to a delay queue, where the
> [co-]maintainers are notified at the time of the upload and have the
> delay time to resolve problems).
I sense that there is too much package 'ownership' crap going on in Debian.
everyone gets whingy when someone else uploads a package the maintain. the
fscking header says 'Maintainer:' not 'Owner:'.
A prime example of the shit that goes on, are those that re-upload after an
NMU with the NMU's patching completely ignored, including the changelog.
This is incredibly childish.
Some will argue, 'why do we have Uploaders: then?' - I'll hasten to remind
people, that this was added so that maintenance teams could all do uploads,
using a common Maintainer: address (such as a mailing list) without the
upload appearing as an NMU because they were in the changelog.
I'm not saying that the above justifies Daniel's upload of X, as it was
clearly a little too stomp-on-toes-ish, but it does raise a valid point that
Branden does take a draconian approach to X, and uses it as an excuse to be
a little lethargic with keeping up to date with upstream. Ok, again, I'm
saying this with some naivety, as I have not read his XSF 'road map', and I
have no plan to.
Mike Beattie <email@example.com> ZL4TXK, IRLP Node 6184
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people
very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams