Bug#911430: Processed: O: spice-vdagent -- spice agent for linux
On 30/05/22 06:00 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 03:55:48PM +0530, Abhijith PA wrote:
> > I own this package. Last upload was done by Jeremy Bicha as their
> > Ubuntu release was due that even without notifying me prior. Now I can
> > see there is also another QA upload.
>
> An ITA really doesn't lock a package forever. You have been claiming
> this ITA since 1½ years (January 2022), but you only done one upload to
> stretch-security (which was under a NMU according to the changelog).
I could argue atleast some activity was happening in repo.
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/spice-vdagent/-/commits/master
> Then you closed this ITA/O with a version that doesn't actually change
> Maintainer but only does another QA upload (the one fro jbicha that you
> mention): such upload really doesn't conclude the adoption process, but
> in fact leaves it in an inconsistent state, so I really don't understand
> why would even do that.
>
>
> Effectively as long as you don't upload this package to unstable with a
> changed Maintainer field you really don't "own" anything. ITAs are
> supposed to be used for coordinating and preventing two people to adopt
> the same package, but I really don't think it's fair to say you "own"
> the package for years without ever uploading it just because of the
> metadata of a bug and with that preventing a QA upload.
> https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/#howto-o
I *adopted this package. Sorry if "own" is a strong word.
Now, have I stopped anyone from uploading. No. Like you said its about
coordination. I could've changed the maintainer field and closed this
bug in changelog if I was notified prior to uploading.
I manually closed this as I don't want ITA to be in pending state for
long time.
> All that said as a preamble, I reopened the bug because this package came
> up in a list of packages with inconsistent metadata ("orphaned without
> associated O bug"), that's how I found it this morning.
In evening I saw a closed bug reopened and re-titled to Orphan. So I
gave my explanation.
--abhijith
Reply to: