Hi, * Jérémy Lal <[email protected]> [2026-08-15 07:08]: >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. To be clear I first packaged scenefx in October 2025, but it was in pretty rough shape and not published anywhere.
On July 17 a DD contacted me by email expressing interest in my mango package https://mentors.debian.net/package/mango/ but said they couldn't build it because there was no scenefx package. This is what prompted me to clean up and publish my scencefx package. Several emails were exchanged, but communication seems to have stalled. I did not file ITP/RFS for either of these packages because I currently have ITP/RFS for another package that I am actively working on, and there are only so many cycles in a day. >Both are wrong, in the sense they should have worked together. The first I time I became aware of the other scenefx package was when I received an email notification with a hostile message on https://mentors.debian.net/package/scenefx/ August 11th. You can see from followup messages that the other packager continued to be hostile. I have no desire to volunteer my time to work with someone who behaves that way. >cc-ing nickh for that reason. > >Please: work together. You need it. Sorry, for the above reasons I don't think that will be possible. I will cease pushing scenefx packages to mentors.debian.net (unless/until such time as there are no other packaging efforts). I hope this is satisfactory. Regards, Nick. -- https://useplaintext.email
