Bug#1008569: unar: diff for NMU version 1.10.1-3
Hi all, 在 2022-04-29星期五的 08:20 +0200，Paul Gevers写道： > Dear Boyuan, > > On 25-04-2022 20:44, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > +unar (1.10.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium > > > + > > > + * QA upload. > > > + * Orphan the package (take over package maintenance) via > > > + ITS process. (Closes: #1008569) > > > > I maybe wrong but I was wondering if this is correct. > > > > Section 5.12 in Debian's Developers Reference [1] clearly says: > > Note that the process is only intended for actively taking over > > maintainership. Do not start a package salvaging process when you > > do not intend to maintain the package for a prolonged time. If you > > only want to fix certain things, but not take over the package, you > > must use the NMU process, even if the package would be eligible for > > salvaging. > > > > And, in this case you salavaged the package with the intention to > > orphan it not to maintain it. > > Today I received the 'Work-needing packages report' [1] that notified me > that there are three reverse dependencies of unar. Two are maintained by > me and the a11y team (I didn't realize that when I say the message by > Sudip). The third is maintained by you. It appears to me that you > "salvaged" unar because of that (I could be wrong, please let me know). > I think it would have helped (at least I would have read the message > from Sudip with more sympathy for you) if you would have made that clear > in your original ITS message and/or in a follow-up message to Sudip. > > Do you think it would be a good idea if you co-maintain this package > with the a11y team? That way, you don't need to take the sole ownership > (which you apparently didn't want) but can still easily keep an eye on > it (and continue the work to package 1.10.7). > > Paul > > [1] > https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/e1nkesg-00066x...@quantz.debian.org Thank you all for the information and offering. Unar is an important package not only because of high popcon and reverse dependencies (including packages in a11y team, KDE's ark, and package bookworm I maintain), it is also the sole sane solution in the Linux world to correctly handle zip files with national encodings AFAIK (especially since unzip-iconv patch never made itself into Debian). That is the basic motivation for me to refresh this package. That being said, having this package team-maintained would be a good idea, better than "maintaining package via QA uploads". I would be happy to co- maintain it under the a11y team, and will reflect team maintenance in the next upload when current icu71 transition is properly dealt. For now my perference is to keep the git packaging repo under salsa.debian.org/debian/ namespace, but please let me know if you have other suggestions. Refreshing this package is expected to be bumpy due to Objective-C source code, non-standard build system, and porting issues ([2][3]). It's likely that I will be seriously using porterbox for the very first time. Any technical suggestions, or even extra hands, would be helpful. Thanks, Boyuan Yang [2] https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/armhf/u/unar/21226476/log.gz [3] https://bugs.debian.org/746198 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1008569: unar: diff for NMU version 1.10.1-3
Dear Boyuan, On 25-04-2022 20:44, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: +unar (1.10.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Orphan the package (take over package maintenance) via +ITS process. (Closes: #1008569) I maybe wrong but I was wondering if this is correct. Section 5.12 in Debian's Developers Reference [1] clearly says: Note that the process is only intended for actively taking over maintainership. Do not start a package salvaging process when you do not intend to maintain the package for a prolonged time. If you only want to fix certain things, but not take over the package, you must use the NMU process, even if the package would be eligible for salvaging. And, in this case you salavaged the package with the intention to orphan it not to maintain it. Today I received the 'Work-needing packages report' [1] that notified me that there are three reverse dependencies of unar. Two are maintained by me and the a11y team (I didn't realize that when I say the message by Sudip). The third is maintained by you. It appears to me that you "salvaged" unar because of that (I could be wrong, please let me know). I think it would have helped (at least I would have read the message from Sudip with more sympathy for you) if you would have made that clear in your original ITS message and/or in a follow-up message to Sudip. Do you think it would be a good idea if you co-maintain this package with the a11y team? That way, you don't need to take the sole ownership (which you apparently didn't want) but can still easily keep an eye on it (and continue the work to package 1.10.7). Paul [1] https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/e1nkesg-00066x...@quantz.debian.org OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1008569: unar: diff for NMU version 1.10.1-3
Hi Boyuan, On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:32:19PM -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote: > Control: tags 1008569 + patch > Control: tags 1008569 + pending > X-Debbugs-CC: kr...@debian.org as...@debian.org jul...@debian.org > > Dear maintainer, > > I've prepared an NMU for unar (versioned as 1.10.1-3) and > uploaded it to DELAYED/14. Please feel free to tell me if I > should delay it longer. > > Regards. > > diff -Nru unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog > --- unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog 2017-03-23 09:45:08.0 -0400 > +++ unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog 2022-04-11 12:27:28.0 -0400 > @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ > +unar (1.10.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium > + > + * QA upload. > + * Orphan the package (take over package maintenance) via > +ITS process. (Closes: #1008569) I maybe wrong but I was wondering if this is correct. Section 5.12 in Debian's Developers Reference [1] clearly says: Note that the process is only intended for actively taking over maintainership. Do not start a package salvaging process when you do not intend to maintain the package for a prolonged time. If you only want to fix certain things, but not take over the package, you must use the NMU process, even if the package would be eligible for salvaging. And, in this case you salavaged the package with the intention to orphan it not to maintain it. [1]. https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging -- Regards Sudip
Bug#1008569: unar: diff for NMU version 1.10.1-3
Control: tags 1008569 + patch Control: tags 1008569 + pending X-Debbugs-CC: kr...@debian.org as...@debian.org jul...@debian.org Dear maintainer, I've prepared an NMU for unar (versioned as 1.10.1-3) and uploaded it to DELAYED/14. Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. Regards. diff -Nru unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog --- unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog2017-03-23 09:45:08.0 -0400 +++ unar-1.10.1/debian/changelog2022-04-11 12:27:28.0 -0400 @@ -1,3 +1,12 @@ +unar (1.10.1-3) unstable; urgency=medium + + * QA upload. + * Orphan the package (take over package maintenance) via +ITS process. (Closes: #1008569) + * debian/control: Set package maintainer to Debian QA Group. + + -- Boyuan Yang Mon, 11 Apr 2022 12:27:28 -0400 + unar (1.10.1-2) unstable; urgency=medium * Add d/patches/fix-crashes.patch patch. diff -Nru unar-1.10.1/debian/control unar-1.10.1/debian/control --- unar-1.10.1/debian/control 2017-03-23 09:45:08.0 -0400 +++ unar-1.10.1/debian/control 2022-04-11 12:27:09.0 -0400 @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@ Source: unar -Maintainer: Matt Kraai -Uploaders: Asias He , - Julián Moreno Patiño +Maintainer: Debian QA Group Section: utils Priority: optional Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9.20120115), gobjc, libbz2-dev, libgnustep-base- dev, signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
