Re: Bug#1010256: ITP: rust-ahash -- non-cryptographic hash function
On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 04:07:43PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting James McCoy (2022-04-27 15:55:34)
> > Communication is different from coordination. There was already in
> > progress packaging. Instead of working with us to get that accepted,
> > you've announced that you're taking over the package and maintaining
> > it elsewhere from the bulk of the rust packages.
>
> Sorry for using the wrong word.
>
> I do not recognize the picture you paint of what has happened here.
>
> What I announced was so-called "intent to package" (not a takeover).
>
> From my perspective, you failed to coordinate _your_ intent to package
> which lead to this unfortunate situation of duplicate efforts.
>
> Please in future consider filing ITPs to avoid such situations.
The Rust team files ITPs for binary crates, not the library crates, as
the binary crates are generally more relevant to the broader Debian
audience.
In terms of avoiding duplicate effort, the debcargo-conf repo _is_ that
mechansim for the Rust team. You're choosing to ignore that and package
things outside of the team's infrastructure.
The Rust team isn't unique in using a single repo for all their
packages.
It would be appreciated if you worked within the team, so the packages
can benefit from the same infrastructure, rather than going off in a
different direction and stepping on existing work.
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/91BF BF4D 6956 BD5D F7B7 2D23 DFE6 91AE 331B A3DB
Reply to: