Hi Paul, Thanks for this message.
On 07/17/2014 01:00 AM, Paul Richards Tagliamonte wrote: > Hello, folks; (this mail is going to both of y'all) > > It's clear there's an overlap in who the rightful maintainer is. dba got here > first, but serge holds the ITP (basically the mutex in this race condition). > > Both are in NEW at the same time, so I'm not going to let either in today. > > It's very clear that you both care a lot about this package, Serge being > upstream, and dba taking the time to package this. Thanks for all that work. > > Please sort out the package situation, and team-maintain this package (or at > least, figure out the maintenance situation) on alioth.debian.org. I'll > continue > to reject packages that there's a dispute over. > > > Both of you have a valid claim to the package, so please work together. > > > Issues with 0.20: > The -dev package situation is still broken. Either properly split your > libraries or drop the -dev. Please see the mails from ansgar on this topic. > This is a blocker for inclusion. I'm sorry if this sounds not so cool, but I'm not sure I get this. Ansgar wrote that there should be a -dev package (on which Daniel wrote back that he thought it'd be micro-packaging, which is something that the FTP masters have for a long time advocate against), and now you're advising that dropping the -dev package could be a solution. So what is it that Daniel should be doing exactly, in a way that the FTP masters would accept? Please provide a clear and motivated reason about rejecting that can make sense for Daniel and his sponsor, so that the next upload attempt is successful, which would save time and effort for everyone. Also, it's looking like the current situation is frustrating for Daniel. As you all know, he's been working on the package since a long time (more than 4 months), and one of the reasons why there's currently a package ownership conflict is because it took so long in the NEW queue with multiple rejects. I'm of course not pointing fingers at the FTP master team (the amount of work is just huge, and I do understand why it can take that long to check for packages...), I just wanted to share his frustration with you, because it's never a good thing to keep feelings unsaid. I've by the way clearly told Daniel that he was wrong for not opening an ITP (he really is). However, one of the reasons we're having ITPs, is so that others can oppose to it. The ITP was opened on the 15th, and the *next* day (in less than 24 hours), Daniel opposed to it, and claimed ownership of it. So in this case, it wouldn't, IMO, be fair to then just say Serge Hallyn should be the maintainer of cgmanager, just because he opened an ITP. That's not how ITP should work in Debian, and that's not how they do. So, talking about "race condition" as you put it here, is kind of an overstatement to me. I also found that Dimitri John Ledkov action of changing the ownership of the ITP back to Serge inappropriate. It's just trying to push for a conflicts, and it shows in his wording on this ITP. Dimitri, could you try to calm down for a second? Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> wrote: > Looking at the packaging, the two are mostly equivalent, apart from > Daniel's is packaged from scratch using different package names and > layouts which would be disrubtive when merging into Ubuntu. Why did > you not import Ubuuntu packaging or contact Ubuntu maintainers about > it, given that re-packaging in Debian does affect Ubuntu. The rightful question should more be: why Ubuntu guys didn't do the work in Debian to begin with? We're supposed to be upstream from Ubuntu, no? So if they do things on their side, then later on there's something different on the Debian side that appears, shouldn't it be their fault to begin with? I have numerous examples of Ubuntu guys doing changes in the Debian packaging without even notifying Debian, then wake up when it's too late. I think this is yet another example. Also, it's to be noted that Daniel seems to want to work together with Serge, so why trying to push for more conflicts? Let's try to make the situation better, no? Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> wrote: > Between the two, Serge has better in-depth package knowledge than > Daniel, upstream connections and better cooperation with other > packages that need/want to integrate with cgmanager (e.g. sending > patches to those upstreams and maintainers to optionally use > cgmanager) My experience with upstream trying to do Debian packaging isn't great. Often, they only care about a single package, know it's upstream source, but don't perform well on the packaging side. I don't think what you've wrote above is a good point of argumentation. > and imho better packaged version of cgmanager, for which > he has filed ITP as per debian processes given that it is required to > update systemd-shim for impeding v208 api compatibility update. > > My preference as someone involved in upstart package maintenance in > Debian, for Serge and/or Debian QEMU team to maintain cgmanager, for > which next upstart update (1.13) will build-depend on. Please review > for acceptance Serge's packaging. My preference would be that you don't take side so quickly, and try to push for cooperation, rather than trying to make the situation worse. > pss. Zigo, can you please ask your sponsorees in the future to always > file ITP bugs, contact upstream about packaging software in Debian, > and package libraries in co-installable separate multi-arch:same > packages. Well, I can *advise* him to do that, but there's nothing in our by-laws that forces him to do it (for all of your 3 points). So it wont be mandatory for me sponsoring packages, or for the FTP masters to accept them as much as I know. By the way, ITP are a courtesy, and I've never read that they were mandatory (have you seen FTP masters rejecting packages on that ground? I haven't...). On your side, please tell your sponsorees that there is a reasonable amount of time during which anyone can discuss or oppose to an ITP. Less than 24 hours is well within that reasonable time for sure. Anyway, let's hope this can be solved in the best possible way, without too much frustration on either side. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53c6c4c2.2070...@debian.org
