On 10/11/2011 07:10 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 10/11/2011 08:38 AM, Peter Volkov wrote: >> В Вск, 09/10/2011 в 22:28 +0000, Duncan пишет: >>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:37:59 +0200 as >>> excerpted: >>> >>>> Duncan schrieb: >>>>> Libpng isn't held up that way, while the package still gets its 30 day >>>>> masking last-rites. No policy broken; no maintainer toes stepped on as >>>>> a result of the broken policy. No more nasty threads about (this) >>>>> broken policy and unhappy maintainers as a result! =:^) >>>> >>>> Actually removing a package that doesn't violate any (written) rules >>>> without maintainer consensus could be considered a violation of policy >>>> too. >>>> >>>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml Respect >>>> existing maintainers: >>>> Never commit when someone else has clear ownership. Never commit on >>>> things with unclear ownership until you've tried to clear it up. >> >> Samuli pretends here to act as a part of QA team (although he is not). >> Actually even whiteboard of stabilization bug tells #at _earliest_ 17 >> Oct" and thus there is really no sign for rush. This is the case where >> QA should voice and either explain why fast stabilization of libpng is >> so important or stop policy breakage. That said it became really common >> to break our own policies (with no attempts to amend policy). > > full stop. > > you are forcing me to bisect the history of pngcrush. > > in 2007, I grab the package from no-herd: > > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 > > then I version bump it and give it to graphics herd to which I'm a team > member of: > > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.3&r2=1.4 > > at this point everything was still fine. > > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/media-gfx/pngcrush/metadata.xml?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 > > mattst88, NOT member of graphics team claims owner ship on the package > without consulting me, or anyone from graphics@ i'm aware of. > > then he version bumps it to latest, which was okay'ish except the > Makefile was not reviewed at all in files/ directory and most of the -D > macros were either wrong, or just obsolete. > > at this point we had pngcrush package of non-subtimal quality with > questionable maintainership. notice that graphics is still in the > metadata.xml to which i'm still part of. > > then as member of base-system, I bump libpng and want to push something > new for the distribution. > > pngcrush, the leaf package of graphics@ gets in the way. > > then I sent a message to mattst88 in Freenode what he wants to do with > the situation. > > never got a reply. > > masked the package. > > what does this has to with qa@ team? well, they might be intrested in > the non-subtimal commit which skipped the Makefile review, also known as > "blind commit" -- otherwise it's none of their business. > > so no, you don't get to use this as anykind of weapon against me or > anyone else involved. > > - Samuli >
then another non member of graphics team, trying to solve the issue by bundling libpng, bundles also zlib and I had to run after the responsible party, reopen the bug then I had to fix the package to use properly toolchain-funcs for linking, cross-compilation was killed in the process too basically picking up the pieces, again... and again then this baseless thread in ML so you propably can guess you've managed to kill any motivation I had for actually fixing the package (could be subject to change) - Samuli
