On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 13:42:56 -0400 Ido Rosen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Doug Newgard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:17:40 -0400 > > Ido Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was maintaining it - it was following Debian stable (8/jessie > > currently), > > > not unstable (sid), as I explained in the previous email to aur-requests. > > > bertptrs is free to create his own package, and call it dpkg-unstable > > for > > > example, if he wants the unstable version. > > > > > > Are you going to follow your own policies about notifying maintainers and > > > giving them a chance to respond going forward? > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, you've been maintaining nothing. You put things up on > > github then tell people to submit pull requests if they want even an > > update. > > That's not maintaining a package, that's you simply wanting control. > > > > I wish you wouldn't resort to responding ad hominem, especially when you're > in the wrong. This month so far I've updated openonload and a couple of > other packages, created the airflow and airflow-git packages, etc. and I've > been responsive to email (clearly since I am responding to events same-day > on a Sunday afternoon), please get your facts straight. ;-) The fact that you've updated a package does not negate the point here. If you don't have time to update other packages and require someone else to do the work, disown the package. > > Not even an hour passed before the package was orphaned and taken over - > there was no attempt to contact me, there was no discussion... I'm clearly > alive and responsive as I updated several other packages just a few days > earlier. Read the entire email before responding. I've now explained in two separate emails before this that it was automatically disowned because you left it out of date for many months. > I'm donating my time and energy to ArchLinux because I want to > help out and because it is useful, I don't understand your comment about > wanting control. (I made lotia a co-maintainer originally, I don't care if > you add me as a maintainer or a co-maintainer, I just need it to undo the > damage that was done. For example, if bertptrs had asked, or if there were > any notice whatsoever, I'd have happily made him a co-maintainer or > disowned the package if he had agreed to keep it tracking stable and not > unstable.) > > As I already said in another reply, the problem is that the package was > > marked > > out of date for over 7 months. In those cases, the package is simply > > orphaned > > automatically, as it's obvious the maintainer isn't doing anything. The > > git log > > verifies this. > > 1.18.9 is the latest upstream stable release of dpkg. Upstream stable > > release > > always go into Debian Unstable, that's why Debian's "Stable" releases are > > always so far out of date. > > > dpkg is used to install packages from Debian-based distributions outside of > pacman. As I said in another reply, there is a reason that I had dpkg > following the Debian stable branch and not the Debian unstable branch, they > have to do with primarily using dpkg to track Debian stable packages > (rather than Debian unstable ones, which tend to correspond to Arch > packages). There are good reasons for having both versions around, and I'd > encourage you or bertptrs to create a new package that tracks the unstable > branch if you want. I think there used to also be a dpkg-ubuntu, which > tracks yet another branch, but it's gone now. Sounds more like there should be a dpkg-old. Arch standards are pretty simple, the "dpkg" package should be the latest upstream stable release.
