Le ven. 14 août 2026 à 23:10, Andrey Rakhmatullin <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 08:47:09PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > >Dear Debian mentors, > > > >I recently filed the ITP and RFS for my package 'scenefx' and uploaded > the package to mentors. > >Another uploader has since submitted a package that references my ITP in > the changelog, but it is not a collaborative submission and should not be > treated as a straightforward continuation of my work. They are actively > refusing to discuss with me about it. I have noted that their salsa > repository predates mine, but I don't see that as a reason to why upload on > top of my perfectly fine package just to change the maintainer field and > introduce more lintian warnings. > > > >I am requesting a review of the upload history and clarification on which > submission should be considered the active package for review. Sorry if I > am bothering you, I appreciate your work for debian. > > One of the main purposes of an ITP is to serve as a mutex. Somebody > uploading a package without even filing an ITP is the losing side. > > That said, if mentors disallowed uploads of the same package name by > different accounts it would be a much more clear situation. > Out of curiosity I checked the git history of the two salsa repositories: nickh/scenefx damian/scenefx and diffed them. Also, I compared the git log of both. My conclusions: - damian is the first to declare an ITP the 30th of july, and later to upload a draft to mentor. However, the packaging skills are missing. Many obvious mistakes. - nickh is the first to have a debian/ dir that looks okay the 22th of july. However, no ITP, no communication. Both are wrong, in the sense they should have worked together. cc-ing nickh for that reason. Please: work together. You need it. Jérémy
