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

Re: Bug#219545: Proposed packages to remove from testing

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:23:46PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 06:40:56PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > > advi:  Maintainer won't fix the RC bug until he fixes "other" problems,
> > > > > > which he hasn't gotten around to.  Packages which FTBFS should not be in
> > > > > > sarge.  Accordingly, remove it until the maintainer gets around to fixing
> > > > > > his bugs.  (or, yell at the maintainer with authority ;-)
> > > > > It's such a simple fix that it's only one-line and I don't know if it's really 
> > > > > worth it, but if it's going to be removed I've got packages that require advi.
> > > > Why should it be removed ? There is really no reason for it, we are not
> > > > near the release in any stretch of the imagination, we are at least
> > > > month from being ready.
> > > Is it currently releasable?  If not, then there's no reason to keep it
> > > in testing, is there?
> > Yes it is, there is nothing wrong with the package, it is statically
> > linked to ocaml, so didn't need to get rebuild for ocaml 3.07, which is
> > why i didn't upload it.
> "Not buildable" -> "not releasable."  This is not a new concept.
> There's more at issue here than whether you as the maintainer believe it
> would be trivial to fix this bug when you got around to it; we have to
> support things like security updates, which demand packages which
> conform to the interfaces published in Policy.

It is only a question of priority. I believe not only that it is a
trivial fix, but also that there are more important bugs for me to work
on before this one, and also that there are more important bugs for you
and others to work on than pestering me about this.

If you are really serious about being ready for sarge release, whic in
my eyes, is a joke today, then it is not enough to close seemingly RC
bugs which in turn are trivial to fix, the overall shape of sarge need
enhancements, and i personnally know that on my packages it is more
important to fix some other things, maybe not marked as RC, but which
are more important to to fix for the overall usability of the future
sarge release.

And since i am not having infinite time to dedicate to debian, i am
forced to take priorities, and, sorry, but this trivial RC bug rank
lower than some other stuff, which since it is not RC, will not attract
the eyes of the bug fixers. In fact i believe that the example bug
against advi is more important than the FTBFS, and i was going to upload
the package with many of those fixes together, but since you are rushing
me, i changed this.

Also, for sarge to be released ontime, there is the problem of the MIA
status of the ftp-masters (well, they don't respond to email, they let
packages sitting in the NEW queue for weeks if not month without any
explanation at all and so on), which is putting an unneeded delay in the
work of their fellow developers, if not treating them with contempt and
rudeness, and stopping them from making everything possible to have
sarge released on time.

> Now, it could have been that this FTBFS bug really only applied to sid,
> and not to sarge (because the build-dependencies were still available in
> sarge); but if that were the case, I would have expected you to tag this
> bug "sid" instead of developing a persecution complex because people
> expect buggy packages to be fixed or removed.  (And I've just confirmed
> that the build-dependency is also unsatisfiable in testing.)

No, this is not the case. It is just a question of priorities. I believe
not many people use advi (yet), and i have had first to fix the example
problem before advi becomes more usable. I have also been working on
parted, and the powerpc kernel packages lately, which are needed for
debian-installer, and removed a non-free part of the ocaml package which
had crept unnoticed into main.

You just don't need to see a package in its singularity, but look at all
the packages of a maintainer globally, if not all the packages of a
group of developers, like the whole ocaml stuff, or the debian-installer
stuff, or ...

> > > Would you really prefer that packages only be removed from testing at
> > > the very last minute, leaving maintainers no time to get a fixed version
> > > back in?
> > Heck, if the ftp-masters had time to loose, then why not, but this not
> > being the case, there are tons of more important things to fix than
> > this, and i am sure that if i ask for the removal of the 2.4.20 and
> > 2.4.21 powerpc kernel today, this will not happen before weeks, while
> > those are plaged with a local root exploit. Indeed i will do that this
> > evening.
> Removing packages from testing is the domain of the release manager;

Which is also an ftp-master, told me he was not busy with the intrusion
when i meet him on irc two weeks ago and attracted his attention on the
powerpc kernel and its implication for debian-installer. He denied
knowing about it, while i have sent an email to him personnally about
this and an email to the ftp-masters in general, which i find is
unworthy of a debian maintainer, and makes me fear for the future
quality of the sarge release and debian. I don't think we will be going
anywhere, if we threat our fellow debian developers like shit.

> removing packages from unstable (and NEW queue processing) is the domain
> of the ftp-master team at large.  Unless you mean for the release
> manager to prioritize the general queue management work above the
> specific release management work, I don't see how the two are much

Yep, or at least provide some feedback about the issue. Right now, they
are like a black hole where nothing ever comes out, and the only way to
get attention is to make a week long rant on the public mailing lists,
which worked for aj some month back, but is lost on elmo, which has me
black-listed anyway.

> related.  All the moreso when you consider that this request only showed
> up on a public mailing list because the person proposing the removal is
> not an ftp-master.

No, i have been ranting on debian-boot for weeks, i have wrotten an
email to them personnaly, have waited for over a month, but nothing seem
to happen ever.

And anyway, if the ftp-masters are too busy to handle even responses,
then something is seriously wrong in the way we handle the archive.

> > > > Time would be much better spent fixing one of the billion other RC bugs
> > > > around, instead of this minor bug.
> > > It may be trivial to /fix/, but a FTBFS is not "minor".
> > dpkg-buildpackage -d fixes it. It is not really a FTBFS, just a broken
> > build dependency. Anyway, i uploaded a fixed package now, including
> > dpatchification, so you will all stop bothering me about this, and let
> > me time to do real bug fixing. It is also in the ocaml SVN repository on
> > alioth now, so anyone feeling like helping out with the other stuff can
> > give a hand there.
> Your misrepresentation of "FTBFS" here is truly mind-boggling.  RC bugs
> do not become less important because they're easy (for the maintainer)
> to fix; if anything, they become MORE important, because this
> demonstrates all the more that a package isn't receiving the minimal
> level of attention required from its maintainer.

That is bullshit. I know perfectly well what an FTBFS bug is, but as the
maintainers of my packages, i am more able to determine the relative
priorities of the work which needs to be done on my packages, more so
than some out-sider who sees nothing but the RC flag, and altough good
intentioned, lacks the insight of the situation that the maintainer has.

And BTW, do you think it is more important of me to fix this FTBFS bug,
or, like i did, fix the parted FTBFS bug, which i did, and whose
maintainer seems to be mostly MIA ? parted is used for debian-installer,
without which we cannot release, while advi is probably used by less
than 1% of our users, and nobody will really miss it if it is removed in
the last minute. It is a question of priorities and time scheduling, and
i always intented to fix this problem before the release (or the freeze
if we still had such a time), that is if the RM will not again pull a
rabit out of his hat, and suddenly declare that we are going to release
tomorrow, like he did for woody, with the consequences that we know of.

And seriously, i am a bit demotivated. I past hours and days compiling
powerpc kernels, each build needing 6 hours of compile time, working
around bugs and bad design in kernel-package, and loosing time i could
otherwise have spent on other stuff, just to have the package die in the
NEW queue limbo. What good is my participation into debian if my work is
threated like shit ? Not to speak about the time last year when i
suddenly, on the 30 of december, receive a mail from elmo telling me
that the way we handle api changes in the ocaml package was not
acceptable to the buildd, without further explanation, and i, instead of
passing a nice sylvester, ask him for details, i get killfiled by him,
and let to wonder in the dark ? And all this, just to see other packages
do exactly the same thing a few months later ?

> If you're really this upset about being asked to not let an RC bug
> languish in the BTS for over a month, perhaps you should consider
> putting this package up for adoption -- or at least asking for help with

What a bullshit ! Sorry, but i am really pissed at the moment, but this
is unimagineable. You clearly think the RC bug is not fixed because i am
lazy and doesn't care, and asking for help is no solution either. Notice
how a patch for the RC bug was provided, indeed an one liner, but not
the more important issues of the package ? What good would it do to fix
thie RC bug, apart from artifically diminishing the RC count so we make
peolpe believe that sarge is of good quality ?

And at least i provide a response in a matter of a few days, if not
hours, while other DD do not provide any _ANY_ response after more than
month, i don't believe that.

> it?  You clearly have other Debian tasks you're working on which you
> assign a higher priority to.  This is no fault, but it's still important
> that RC bugs be taken care of, even if the way to do that is to cede
> responsibility for the package.

Again, the RC ranking is arbitral. I personaly believe that other bugs
of the advi package are more important, than this FTBFS, and was working
in my spare time on fixing many of the bug reports against the advi
package, not only a minor stuff for which a workaround is known and

Find me someone which is willing to take over the package, or even do
co-maintainership, will you, and you will see that few persons are
available, few persons have the knowledge of the ocaml language which i
have, and the contact to upstream. In fact if such a person does exist,
we would be happy to have him in the ocaml-debian team, and there are
many tasks we cannot do for lack of maintainers interested in ocaml
stuff. Orphaning or RFAing the package would only result in someone with
less interest and less time than me to handle this package, so ...


Sven Luther

Reply to: