Am Montag, den 26.01.2009, 18:50 +0100 schrieb Daniel Leidert: > This is *not* the policy of Debian Science! You're right. It's a draft and a recommendation, and it states that. > Being part of Debian Science just requires to care about scientific > packages or related goals. It will (and must) *never* require to > follow any packaging policy except the Debian policy and it also must > not require to join Alioth! I do not know the original thread but I highly doubt that anyone has said that. Debian Science as a project/blend currently offers a space for packages to reside in a public repository, currently hosted on Alioth. Of course there is no need to put stuff on Alioth but one can do so if (s)he desires to do so. Some people did already and I do not see why they should be wrong in doing so. > I forgot to reject your announcement the first time I saw it on the > Debian debian-science mailing list. But now I have to say this loud and > clear. Debian Science is formed of several packaging teams and several > package maintainers and the debian-science Alioth project is just one of > them and not "the one". You should compare your package count to all the > other teams, who are part of Debian Science (scicomp, med, debichem, > gis, ...) and ask yourself, how you come to the idea to dictate a > policy?!?!?! Noone ever drove any efforts to destroy existing teams or whatever you seem to imply here. Packaging under the Debian Science scope is a possibility to add scientific packages if no appropriate subgroup exists or the packager is not aware of. If it's better suited to some other team, so be it. But it does not mean that putting packages under Debian Science is nonsense. Also, noone dictated a policy. There was (and is) a draft and recommendation which some people follow, others don't. It's not dictated or enforced in any way. It mostly contains recommendations, so stating that tools are enforced is exaggeration. It's a policy like a lot of other subgroups, such as Debian Med, have. We wrote something up, we made it publically available for discussion, and included all feedback we got. Since you declined to provide one, you're not really in the position to question the result. Stating "It's all crap anyway" is not constructive feedback, IMNSHO, and unfortunately, that is how I read your email. > And: *If* we (all the teams and maintainers) ever agree on > one mailing list, then it will definitely not be an Alioth list. > debian-science exists. Debian-science@ has mainly been a user list and there was discussion about moving maintaining-related issues to a different list to not bother users on debian-science. Most of the subscribers there seem to have no or very few interest in packaging. (Unfortunately, I do not have numbers on that. But take Paul's reply as an example.) The maintainer list is currently hosted on Alioth, as a lot of other team lists. I fail to see the issue with that. > Stop announcing your very own and personal packaging policy as the > "Debian Science Policy". I'm not amused and some kind of pissed off. I'm not exactly sure with what your anger is but I doubt it is a document. Your tone does not help the people interested in driving this blend forward in any way, and Sylvestre is surely one of them and has nothing but the best intentions. I would really appreciate it if you get back here when you calmed down and we can have a fruitful discussion. The tone of your email is a style that unfortunately seems to become the normal tone in Debian, and I do not appreciate that. This really kills the fun, and I'm pissed off by that, too. I nevertheless think we can work out our issues here, since they seem in part be due to different ideas/pictures of what Debian Science actually is or should be. > If you want to write down something about git/git-buildpackage or > svn/svn-buildpackage or dpatch or quilt, than send it to the authors of > the Debian new maintainers guide and add it there to let everybody > benefit from it. It's simply not ready for that, and even if it would, I do not think it is the right place. The (incomplete) Git part in the policy document is there because I was explicitely asked to provide some information for those interested in packaging with Git but unfamiliar with it. If it pleases you, we can move that elsewhere. The intent was to help, not to implement a dictatorship. > If you want a *Debian Science Policy*, then write down a > document, that does not contain any requirements like joining Alioth, > using special packaging tools, ... And such a policy has to be agreed on > debian-science and has to be published at debian.org. Then you can call > it the "Debian Science Policy". It is rude and offending to pubslish > your own ways of packaging as a global policy. It does not make any requirements. Also, it's a guide one can follow if packages are put into the Debian Science scope. It does not affect any local policy; Debian Med do their stuff as they always did and noone is going to change that or enforce any policy. AFAIK they never published their policy to debian.org. The Debian Science policy is in no way different and I do not see why "we" should behave differently. As already stated, it was not in anyone's intent to establish personal packaging practices as a global policy. It's offending to impute such an intent to project members. If you feel uncomfortable with the current situation, please provide constructive criticism. I'm sure there are a lot of people around who will listen to what you have to say. But emails in the style of the one I'm replying to is not going to get your points heared or improved. I'm sorry if I've been rude myself! I intented to write this email in a neutral tone and did my best to do so. (I even hesitated to send it.) It's for others to judge whether I suceeded or failed. But I feel very uncomfortable with such rude attacks against people who just want to make Debian (Science) a better project than it already is. Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil