Bug#635504: ITP: flashcache -- write back block device cache for Linux
Hi Arno,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
Much appreciated.
I well relicense files in debian/* as GPLv2+
> * You provide no mechanism to setup a flashcache volume on boot.
Well, even if this functionality might be nice to have, it is not
required and it is not in upstream.
So it is not a flaw in my package. Providing extra functionality
should not be a blocker for package release.
For example cryptsetup package (which is also managing device mapper
pass-through devices) do not have this functionality.
This functionality arguably may be considered a separate job, which
might be packaged separately.
As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said: "A designer knows he has
achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away."
> * You close an ITP bug you don't own ... mine.
OK, I'd like to get the better understanding of what's the problem here.
Am I expected to file a duplicate ITP if I already have a solution?
Do we allow competition in Debian,
or does whoever filed ITP first, get a monopoly over packaging?
At least anyone is free to fix someone else's bugs even though someone
might be already working on it.
> Fair enough. Please note this is not how we work in Debian, though. I am
> the owner of the ITP bug and I made visible progress since I filed the
> ITP. You will very likely have a hard time in finding a sponsor while
> trying to hijack someone else's packages.
> This does not give you very much alternatives to my offer, besides of
> stepping down as maintainer (in Debian) completely. Your approach wasn't
> exactly polite and yet I offered you to form a team together with me.
I understand the importance and benefits of collaboration.
Visibility of your progress is questionable since in the ITP had no
information about location of your effort
or the progress you've made.
I was ready to file my own ITP but yours was already there, for over a
month without update.
I'm not sure if I should care about finding a sponsor - if you have
one, your work will get a better chance to be included when you
finish.
Meanwhile my package make sense.
I'm not sure what's the meaning of hijacking in this context.
I made all the work by my own independently.
To some extent there is a duplication of effort which we could avoid
if I were able to find your work.
Whatever I do you are in better position to have your work to be
accepted into Debian, so there is probably nothing for you to worry
about.
> This does not give you very much alternatives to my offer, besides of
> stepping down as maintainer (in Debian) completely. Your approach wasn't
> exactly polite and yet I offered you to form a team together with me.
I never meant to be impolite and I am sorry if I happen to do
something rude accidentally.
I see no drama if one of us will not be maintainer for flashcache
package - there are plenty of other opportunities to contribute.
I'm OK to be a co-maintainer (two brains always better than one) and I
appreciate your offer.
What I don't understand is what exactly your offer is.
You're already free to take whatever you need for your package from
mine - my understanding is that you don't even need permission for it.
There are some minor concerns of mine like package version numbers:
for example my numbering may not be exactly orthodox, but it can be
translated directly into upstream checkout version.
But my biggest concern is package availability.
If my estimation is accurate, without usable outcome you spent about
4x times more time working on your package than I spent on mine.
This is probably because I desperately need working package.
Would teaming with you would require for me to work on both packages
until you will be ready to release yours?
Probably yes and I'm not sure if I want it or understand why it is
worth it. (Or should I do it merely for not hurting your feelings?)
I believe I did little wrong by doing work on the package and I refuse
to feel guilty about it.
Even though co-maintaining seems reasonable, you made it sound like a
favor to me, which is fine because I'm not proud.
But at this point I think someone else (a Debian Developer) should
tell us who should merge with who according to our work and not
according to who logged an ITP first.
I'm not in position to compare the quality of our packages.
Of course both of us eager to do the best work possible.
Having said this I understand that perfect work takes forever to finish.
We need to release something now, and I believe I'm a little bit ahead
of you in that regards (quite accidentally though).
In the end it doesn't matter who's package will remain the one as long
it will be available.
Please feel free to merge whatever you find useful.
I hope you'll excuse me for my lack of understanding (and experience)
of what it is to be a co-maintainer.
Please let me know of any procedures you believe we should agree on.
All the best,
Dmitry.
On 19 September 2011 20:45, Arno Töll <debian@toell.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On 18.09.2011 16:25, onlyjob wrote:
>> When you mention technical problems, I wish you could be more specific.
>
> You made some semantic errors Lintian can't detect in its purpose as
> static analysis tool. As I said, I didn't extensively check your
> package. Among the most obvious things are:
>
> * For example the VCS fields do not denote upstreams VCS, but the
> packaging VCS in Debian.
> * You provide no mechanism to setup a flashcache volume on boot.
> * You are not supposed to copy the DKMS script into your package, but to
> invoke them at runtime.
> * You close an ITP bug you don't own ... mine.
> * Code of Flashcache is GPL-2 _only_ but you release your Debian
> packaging as GPL-3+. That will cause trouble as soon as you need to
> merge patches (at least).
>
>> I don't quite see the point in merging something working into
>> something what doesn't work, and not the other way.
>
> Fair enough. Please note this is not how we work in Debian, though. I am
> the owner of the ITP bug and I made visible progress since I filed the
> ITP. You will very likely have a hard time in finding a sponsor while
> trying to hijack someone else's packages.
> This does not give you very much alternatives to my offer, besides of
> stepping down as maintainer (in Debian) completely. Your approach wasn't
> exactly polite and yet I offered you to form a team together with me.
>
>> (With all due respect there are more than some minor things you didn't
>> address i.e. your package is not usable yet even though you did a lot
>> of work.)
>
> I didn't say my package would be ready to use. That's the reason why I
> didn't try to introduce it to Debian yet. However I believe, the package
> is (sort of) usable as is. If you find some problems, I am eager for
> letting me know.
>
>> For practical reasons giving up working package may be not the best
>> option for people who might need it.
>
> Merging is not exactly the same as giving up. Also, Debian is not only
> about working packages, but also about quality packages, and that takes
> time. Something which "just works" somehow is trivial to achieve.
>
> Note, by that I didn't want to imply at all that your package would not
> be a quality package. I am just not confident enough about mine yet, as
> I know it lacks certain features including but not limited to tested
> init.d support and manpages.
>
> - --
> with kind regards,
> Arno Töll
> IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
> GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOdx1YAAoJEMcrUe6dgPNtZdgQAJf09vPCOOkZTRuJYcsQc1D9
> rXC2PcW3XviT44hvLJdUvPilq6xPI4d4964hNdmagd1fchtjZ9xJl/bfIjLJGOfA
> fIdPr7SSX6LHHnS7On04DEX9AL0brc04AOYqcNyjAFV01pRM5z3p1xgDDP7GeBF5
> Cvtksvasyq303GwpR2Y4O6lXeoM7AcMYIIeAM5xp7G2AIDLKaqeFTQKI/0I4s3k9
> rRR7XBGyCIpjO7CL/kzPRVQnfm+YwPjTIBQ9BJXb8X7j7rGlt4EJ+YzBuEkIpkO6
> 4qwftFO/zRaYIJ2HOPDQU95bIrecj8hsNJrbzCIgd10K7ePr0wQP41UWR6+PjW/L
> J3aDsizeud2KW7hDO3HSC1HQwCmpE2NF6NynXlzYtq5Q9UI+n24+E3AW8lbFS4DZ
> oinJjKwyLjJJQB9UIiNV6tq/Ss5KXbtMqd410S6a5vwZhk+adEG1wUOtzpFax1FV
> aM9dmFWZDALMKEhd8JQtnyS0OCUVKMwEB8yl41T5VqYtRQPO8BekcNCgK11n1BJG
> EPQlnffU/GH2p/WgRtAWq+dmmAWxLPPh/QOcRPHGkJLuCULSp0Q6D+8D0a+6zrRD
> B4FbRye44F0j4rBXkNHJ5438Rx0QZeYIgO6wmR69Yr9NIFszgCk88xwDQdO6CQvw
> uqGRpFYY/AmjVYPwogbi
> =0NEQ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Reply to: