Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages
Dominique Devriese <devriese@kde.org> writes:
> Brian Nelson writes:
>
>> Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:43:33PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why do you insist so stubbornly on maintaining the package? You
>>>> don't take very good care of it, and you've said in the past that
>>>> you don't even do any Qt development.
>>>
>>> If you saw Qt before a few of us beat on it around April 2002 you
>>> would understand why no one else _wants_ to maintain it. Trolltech
>>> is very lacking in clue and had to be constantly beat on to do
>>> things competently. They may be getting better but from what I have
>>> heard recently they are still pretty incompetent. I was originally
>>> going to maintain Qt as well but ran away screaming. ;) Thats
>>> pretty bad considering the shape KDE was in at the time as well...
>
>> Yeah, I'm quite aware of Trolltech's occasional insanity. However,
>> I'm maintaining a fork anyway so maintaining the Debian package
>> wouldn't really be much extra work for me.
>
> Since you seem to want to replace Martin by force, let me just say
> this: Martin's track record wrt bugs is far from perfect, but I feel
> very much more comfortable with him maintaining the package than you
> doing it.
>
> Your uninformed proposals wrt. undoing the package split have proven
> to me that you don't know Qt enough to be able to maintain the
> package, and that you don't have the experience or intelligence to
> realise that fact.
Weeeee, more personal insults.
As I've said before, I don't consider the Qt packages I posted earlier
fit for upload. In fact, if I did take over the package in Debian, I
wouldn't make many of the changes I made in that package, especially
considering sarge's imminent release.
Also, I'm not convinced all of my proposals are good ideas. They are
merely proposals I've opened for discussion. I've provided the
rationale for each of my proposals, but all I've gotten in return are
statements like "it's important to provide both flavours" (uh, why?
I've already tried to explain why it's *not* important) or falsities
about the buildd's and such.
Which all kind of makes me think no one involved in Debian's Qt package
has any idea what they're doing--and looking at the package, that seems
very plausible.
> I am also convinced that you don't know about the kind of difficult to
> resolve bugs that a Qt maintainer is faced with.
Err, well I have gone through many of the bug reports, which is
something Madkiss clearly has not done. So I do have a pretty good
idea...
> You have to realise that ACE is a package that not much people use (
> and rightfully so imho, but let's not start about that ),
Heh heh, fair enough...
> so it's pretty easy to fix its bugs.
True. I'm not saying that being involved in ACE's packaging qualifies
me to maintain Qt, though it has given me experience in hacking on a
build system even uglier than Qt's (which is an impressive feat...).
> Conclusion: I suggest that you try to work together with Martin on the
> package or shut up.
I've always tried to work together. I think the whole territorial "MY
PACKAGE, HANDS OFF!" thing in Debian is just bullshit. We all should be
working together.
I was trying to have a reasonable discussion in this thread. I pointed
out problems and offered solutions, asked questions about things I
didn't understand, and backed up my arguments with thoughtful
explanations.
Then Madkiss attacked me and tried to laugh me out of the room, and now
you're saying you think I'm an idiot without explanation (saying I don't
understand package splits is *not* an explanation). And people wonder
why the Debian Qt packages are in such shitty shape? Have you
considered that Madkiss (and possibly you) are not willing to work
together with anyone else, and are more content to fight and argue than
to actually improve the packages?
It's not like I'm the first person Madkiss has pissed off--as I'm sure
we all remember.
--
You win again, gravity!
Reply to: