Hello, على ٣٠/٥/١٤٤٠ هـ ٢:١٦ ص، كتب Andreas Tille: > Hi Afif, > > please lets move this to the list I guess it is fine to quote your > non-privat text here.
Fine with me. > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:03:26AM -0500, Afif Elghraoui wrote: >> >> The >> problem is I'm not sure how filing an RFA or orphaning a package works >> within a team. I think what I should have done in the beginning is send >> out a message on the debian-med list asking for someone to take over and >> then formally orphan/remove the ones that didn't get adopted. > > You could start with removing yourself as Uploader which is a clear sign > that you will not work on this any more. Can do. > I might consider adding myself > to make sure we have at least one uploader in the team. I do not see > any reason to remove packages that are functional and not RC buggy (over > several releases). > Ok >>> I remember you >>> said you are not using these any more but the same is true for me - I >>> never ever used any of those packages and I spent a lot of time on these >>> anyway> I wonder whether you might be able to become active and deal >>> with the issues on the packages where you are in the Uploaders field. >> >> I don't think you should spend time on the packages you have no interest >> in, either. > > What means "interest"? If it is I should not spend time on packages I'm > not using for my own work I can leave Debian Med since I'm not using a > single one. As a Debian maintainer I want to provide a useful system > for my colleagues and the motivation to maintain also packages that are > not used here is to possibly attract even more people to join the > effort. This attraction of people has worked to some extend (way better > than in other teams but admittedly I was hoping for more active > contributors). Ok, that's another form of interest. My original interest was personal, with the willingness to share work I was going to be doing for myself anyway. Yours is a little bit different. > >> What I would be willing to do is file for removal of the >> packages where I'm listed as the sole uploader. > > I do not think that we should remove packages with some popcon users > that are not RC buggy. > Ok >> Even if I was still using the packages, it is much less motivating to >> maintainer Debian packages for scientific software than something >> vendor-neutral and user-installable like conda, which has become very >> popular in bioinformatics. In fact, all these PacBio packages that I had >> created for Debian are now packaged in conda by upstream itself. > > Honestly, I think the conda-hype has some positive effects also for our > packaging. I realised that upstreams learned that release tags are a > good idea, responding to issues of packagers is more frequent and so on. > IMHO software that is fit for Conda packaging has increased chances to > be not hard to package for Debian as well. Sure. > I do not see Conda as a pure > competitor to our efforts since there are also different areas where the > different packaging efforts are differently suited. I think it is a pure competitor for the bioinformatics packages; at least the ones I worked on. > However, by all > means we should force the effort to package the Conda tools themselves > in any case. > I gave conda as an example. It has problems of its own, like unbearable sluggishness [1,2], but the general idea of cross-platform, unprivileged package management is what appeals to scientists. regards Afif 1. https://github.com/conda/conda/issues/7700 2. https://github.com/conda/conda/issues/7938 -- Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي http://afif.ghraoui.name
