On 2021-09-30 6:13 p.m., Michael Lustfield wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 13:49:36 -0400
John Brooks <j...@fastquake.com> wrote:
[...]
So... My first response was a wordier version of the message you replied to,
emphasizing the bit where my opinion is moot. What's written below is as much
as I'm willing to dip back into #debiandrama. While reading, please remember
this point (and don't expect further response).
My original request was for a removal, which is a stance I whole-heartedly
still stand by, and which draws from experiences after adopting the package. A
removal like this is basically orphan++ ("I'm afk4eva" vs. "bad package"). That
changed slightly with zeha's bug modifications, but the effect is still largely
the same, with a touch of stability added. (Thanks zeha!)
(sensible action, but likely helps with that "limbo" perception?)
^ https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rsnapshot
side note --
> Additionally, in response to this very bug, a new upstream release has
> now been issued. In light of this, do you plan to upload the new version
You very correctly point out that a number of fixes and a new release came
directly in response to certain actions. Unfortunately, we draw very
different
conclusions. (a hint, perhaps?)
I appreciate that you responded to that particular (#30) message of mine, where
I say that I don't intend to stand in anyone's way, and offered to help anyone
interested in package maintenance, while also maintaining my position. This is
important to me because some people have indeed taken a stab at rsnapshot
maintenance; however, they very quickly disappeared when they learned that it
would require more effort than just slapping an updated tarball onto the
packaging.
and continue to fill the role of maintainer for the rsnapshot Debian
package, or is another maintainer still needed going forward?
^ "continue" stopped at the RM-RoQA (note: this tag was not an accident)
The root of why I claim how I feel does not matter is because the end result is
the same. The only thing that's required to override my (strong) opinion is for
someone to pick it up, understand it well enough to confidently claim it's
ready for release (start w/ debian bugs), and that'll be the end of this thread.
Thank you for your reply. I admit I'm rather a dilettante in this area.
I'm only a user and have had little or no exposure to the Debian
development process. I didn't even see "RoQA" until you pointed it out,
and then had to look up what it means — "Requested by the QA team".
And that's about where my ability to contribute usefully ends. My belief
that the Debian organization and its contributors are generally
intelligent and sensible leads me to believe that you and the QA team
have good reasons for removing the package, even if I don't understand them.
I don't know precisely what criteria of stability and quality are used
to judge whether a package is suitable for inclusion; my outside view is
that this package is no more broken or unmaintained than the average
Debian package. The only bug of "serious" severity classification is
this one. But when my uninformed assessment is at odds with an actual
Debian maintainer, I have no choice but to assume that there is an
important factor which I am blind to. I understand that it's not your
responsibility to teach me just to satisfy my idle curiosity, so we can
leave it at that.
Thank you for your service.
John Brooks
