Bug#695849: [SCM] glmark2/master: RFP/ITP bug #695849 assigned
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Dmitry Smirnov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 23:10:15 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM, <email@example.com>
>> > The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>> > commit d191a4eb0740b54661c4cc0fc288b79063e822a4
>> > Author: Dmitry Smirnov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > Date: Thu Dec 13 23:59:01 2012 +1100
>> > RFP/ITP bug #695849 assigned
>> > diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
>> > index 9c36013..19d9f30 100644
>> > --- a/debian/changelog
>> > +++ b/debian/changelog
>> > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>> > glmark2 (2012.11-1) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
>> > - * Initial release (Closes: #).
>> > + * Initial release (Closes: #695849).
>> > -- Dmitry Smirnov <email@example.com> Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:31:56
>> > +1100
> Sorry Reinhard, I'm a bit confused which package you're talking about --
> "glmark2" or "libdvdcss-pkg"? You quoted one bug but posted to another...
Oh, sorry, I was indeed talking about glmark2. Sorry, for copying the
wrong bug, fixed now.
>> TBH, I think this package is (currently) not fit for the
>> pkg-multimedia team for two reasons:
>> a) It does not contain the upstream sources, only the packaging
>> directory debian/ is in the tree
> If it is glmark2 it is easy enough to fix if you're concerned about team's
> best practice. Is this so important because of team preference?
> In SVN we usually track only packaging. I think choosing git shouldn't always
> imply git-buildpackage repository layout...
Well, I think consistency in the workflow is important for working
efficiently in a team. Therefore, this point is for me an absolute
requirement for working on the package.
IOW: I do not the svn-buildpackage package layout, and I absolutely hate it.
>> b) It is not backed up by some other pkg-multimedia team member.
> Please help me to understand -- because I'm not sure what package you're
> talking about. Do we need at least one team member to back it up?
> Or would you insist on minimum two members?
Yes, I do really think that *every* package in pkg-multimedia should
have *at least* two *active* team members in the Uploaders field.
Everything else indicates that not enough developers in the team care
for the package, which in the end is harmful for pkg-multimedia. We
already a pretty bad maintainer per package ratio, and adding more
poorly-maintained packages does not help at all.
>> Dimitry, unless both issues can be fixed, I think collab-maint would
>> serve a much better umbrella than pkg-multimedia.
> Although glmark2 is finished I'm a bit reluctant to take responsibility for it
> at this time but I might do it later.
> Package "glmark2" is much related to multimedia and appears to be a good fit
> for a team. Does it make sense to move it to collab-maint for some time? Even
> if not maintained now, it's a new package so perhaps it's not too important
> where it is waiting for maintainer while it is not uploaded yet.
> It feels a bit like "finish it or leave"... Speaking about finishing, did you
> have a chance to try it? Do you think it is useful despite failure of some
> opengl (but not opengl-es) tests? If so I'm happy to own ITP even though it
> might not be a right time for me.
Sorry, I neither have time nor interest to investigate glmark2, nor do
I find glmark2 particularly in scope of pkg-multimedia. Moreover, the
svn-buildpackage style packaging already deterred me enough to refrain
me to take a closer look.