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

Upstream maintainers are sleeping (Was: Reviving Debian QA

On Monday 29 March 1999, at 1 h 17, the keyboard of Adam Di Carlo 
<aph@debian.org> wrote:

>   * check that patches that should be sent upstream are being sent
>     upstream -- I think this is very important and I think we have a
>     bit of a bad reputation on this count.

Could you elaborate? After all, source packages are available for the upstream 

> (d) Perhaps another cron job, implementing a public emailing to
>  debian-devel, listing the top 100 packages with huge debian diffs.

This seems a poor metric. One of the packages I maintain (ncbi-tools6-dev) has 
a documentation of 300 pages in MS-Word format. I translated it in ASCII and 
put in the source package. Does it qualify me as "not sending patches 

Also, the upstream maintainers have a bad reputation, too :-) queso in Debian 
now has a lot of patches which are silently ignored by the upstream maintainer 
(64 bits support, for instance). We are actually forking. The maintainer of 
phylip, when I sent him the patches for glibc support, replied that he already 
had them in his private area for a long time but did not bother to make a new 
release :-( This sort of behaviour does not push me to send patches upstream 

>  Start pushing harder for maintainers to try to work out fixes with
>  the upstream maintainers -- this is a cultural issue.  (Maybe even a
>  lintian warning if the debian diff has lots of patches not under the
>  debian subdir?)

So, when an upstream maintainer no longer replies, I will be castigated?

Reply to: