Re: Maintainance of your packages
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 02:58:01AM +1000, Sam Johnston wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
>
> >You've said in [1] that you are currently too busy to take care of your
> >packages.
>
> Actually, no I didn't - that post refers specifically to qmailadmin
> which is only in unstable anyway. Do not presume to know anything about
> another maintainer's situation unless you are specifically told - I
I apologize, I took the wrong conclusion indeed. My fault.
> found your earlier mail[1] particularly antisocial - final exams were
> one of a myriad of reasons for my vacation status, most of which are,
> quite frankly, none of your business.
I never asked about _why_ you were busy, as that indeed is none of my
business. I'm sorry the mail you referred to came over as antisocial, I
didn't at all intend it to be. I noticed a suboptimal situation -- you
being very busy, and as a result, squirrelmail bugs not being addressed
as promptly as what would have been possible -- and wanted to help out
finding a solution. I did -- and still am -- struggeling quite a bit how
to deal with such a case gracefully, since I don't know you personally
and email is such an emotion-less medium (plus my non-native
English-language 'skills' don't help either)...
The only thing I intend is to find a way to go that benifits you, Debian
and its users in the best possible way. I certainly don't have anything
_against_ you.
> >* mysource
> > I'll file a RFH on this package, you obviously don't have enough time
> > for this package
>
> Development was funded by a commercial project for which we ended up
> using another product. I'm more than happy for this package to be
> removed altogether and the new version packaged from scratch by someone
> who cares about the product. The package was uploaded early to get
> feedback about it and probably should have made its way into
> experimental instead, if at all.
Based on what you say here, I think it's best to orphan it, to see if
someone wants to take it over. Based on the amount of bugreports,
somebody might. If still nobody want to take it over in a year or so, it
can still be removed.
> >* pound -- reverse proxy, load balancer and https front-end for
> >web-servers
> > With your last upload you apparantly broke SSL, advertised in the
> > short description, and obviously a core feature of the package. I
> > don't think it's of release quality due to this bug, I'm upgrading the
> > bug to RC, and will file a RFH on this one too.
>
> Actually upstream broke SSL and are yet to release a fixed version -
> when they release, I'll release.
Hm, indeed. I don't know what the best course of action is, if it's
indeed only upstream breakage, maybe going back one version might help?
This only is a solution if they do work, even with newer 2.6 kernels
etc, something which is quite unsure.
> >* pxesconfig
>
> pxes (dependency) is severely problematic in terms of licenses, policy
> compliance (static linking, etc.) and ability to build from source. It
> is unlikely to make its way into Debian any time soon. That said, I am
> in discussion with upstream and another developer about possible fixes.
> pxesconfig can go away for now.
Because of the 'not anytime soon', I think indeed. I'll file a bug on
ftp.debian.org asking for it, if you don't mind.
> >* rdesktop
> >
> > Still two important bugs open claiming it fails to work completely,
> > but you did make a new upload afterwards. You didn't say whether you
> > tested it, but I'm not very confident you did, so the bug could still
> > be present.
>
> More unnecessary accusations. 1.3.1 has been out over 6 months and is
> stable - it did resolve a number of endian/connection issues over 1.3.0
> and as such I am confident enough that #219497 and #227989 are resolved
> to close them - the users have been given over 6 months to respond to my
> queries and there have been no further complaints.
Today I had someone verify that the current rdesktop version indeed
simply works. I didn't mean to accuse you of not testing (because, it
isn't your duty to do so), I merely wanted to convey that it wasn't
apparant that those bugs were indeed confirmed solved, because nobody
tested it yet.
(on a side-note, closing bugs by means of 'close' to control@b.d.o is
deprecated, if you send the explanaition to the ###-done@b.d.o
addresses, the bug submitters will get a nice explaination of what
is happening)
> > As there is no real need for a completely broken package
> > in sarge, I'll try to get someone to test it, and maybe file a RFH
> > too, especially since it's quite high on the popcon stats.
>
> Don't bother - the package is fine as is.
Indeed, since the testing showed it isn't completely broken (it isn't
broken at all), this paragraph of mine is moot.
> >* squirrelmail
> >
> > Lots of unattended security issues in woody (fixed by myself), and
> > testing/unstable version was in pretty bad shape. I'll put myself as
> > maintainer and you as co-maintainer, so that mails to the maintainer
> > get attended (I'll forward any). It is basicly unmaintained since
> > february, and more than 3 months ago I NMU'd, without any other
> > reaction than the note that you were marked as on vacation (for 'final
> > exams').
>
> I have already updated and uploaded the package tonight, although I did
> not (yet) list you as a [co-]maintainer, which I will do on the next
> upload, unless you beat me to it. I severely miscalculated the releases
> of both SM and Debian and could have avoided most of the problems by not
> introducing a development release - this won't happen again. I am at
> odds with the Debian backporting policy wrt SM anyway, but it is still
> an important package for me, so go ahead and list yourself as the
> maintainer and me as a co-maintainer if you prefer.
Thanks for the upload, I was pleasantly surprised. The development
version 1.5.0 wasn't very well announced as such, I must say I was
confused earlier too, but educated by one of SM's developers on the
issue.
Regarding maintainance/comaintainance: I'd be glad to maintain the
package together with you, in cooperation with Thijs Kinkhorst of
upstream. Who is listed as maintainer and who as co-maintainer doesn't
really matter very much to me, the maintainer will act as primary
contact point for any kind of issues and direct questions, and as such
is a bigger responsability. I offer to take that responsability upon me,
sharing any mail with you for opinion, but you still decide whether
you'll accept my offer.
> >* qmailadmin
> >
> > Seems to fail to work completely, six different people reported that,
> > no single maintainer reaction, in addition, it FTBFS's.
> >
> > You promised to "It is however a useful package so I will have it
> > fixed for the next release", but I don't know if you mean Sarge, but
> > then you're quite late. I'll immediately file a RFH bug on this
> > package, and upgrade bugs about it not working at all to RC.
>
> I have a 1.2.1 package, but it doesn't compile. Nor does the one at
> http://www.rnd-software.com/debian/ for that matter. No doubt a simple
> fix, and one that I'll make when it's not almost 0230.
I hope you'll be able to resolve these issues.
> Meanwhile, if someone wants to take over/remove mysource and pxesconfig
> then they are most welcome. Same applies for netjuke which had until now
> dropped off my radar because of the email address used.
Regarding netjuke, I understand you mean to orphan it, so someone can
take over or, if nobody does so, it can get removed. If that's indeed
the intention, I'll do so (unless you beat me to it, of course).
Thanks,
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: