Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:00:51PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Instead, tools grew to tolerate commas here rather than treat them as > separators (because they would mishandle the erroneous packages). Is this the main problem with fixing the Policy? Does someone have a plan with this? -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 03:19:51PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > As just someone who mostly maintains one package (fio - flexible I/O > > > tester) I can certainly understand how you feel about that Lucas > > > removed you as a maintainer. > > > > But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into > > Maintainer and Uploaders. > > Well I did and thus read Ian Campbell´s mail¹ and the commit he linked > to differently: > > > Not just as a comaintainer according to > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gjots2/commit/ > > 202ae3f586cbe3a7867b881389382d3ee75b39a9 which > > relegated > > the previous maintainer to Uploaders. > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/04/msg00297.html Yes, and there is no Policy difference between Maintainer and Uploaders. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:13:08PM +0200, Alex Mestiashvili wrote: > Team maintained packages usually have team's name and mailing list in > the "Maintainer:" field and possibly multiple "Uploaders:". Sure. And either they convey some info with that (like Python teams do) or not. And somebody might say this info should be stored outside the source package ;) -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
Hello, On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > Personally I would prefer to manage maintainership via a separate > database to the archive, perhaps tracker. Something would have to > automatically generate Maintainer and/or Uploaders for the benefit of > old consumers. I think we all want this eventually. Relying on tracker to deliver most package related e-mails is a step in that direction because tracker has built in support for a concept of teams. We can start to figure out a new way to track team membership and maintainance in Debian, and perhaps the uploaders field will just become genuinely obsolete. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
Sean Whitton writes ("Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian"):
> [stuff]
I don't object to any of that.
Personally I would prefer to manage maintainership via a separate
database to the archive, perhaps tracker. Something would have to
automatically generate Maintainer and/or Uploaders for the benefit of
old consumers.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
Hello Ian, On Wed, Apr 18 2018, Ian Jackson wrote: > IMO it would be better to abolish Uploaders in favour of fixing the > original spec bug in Maintainers. Also, easier, because as a > practical matter, there is a lot of software that will fail if it > fails to find a Maintainer field but won't really mind what it > contains. AIUI the tracker.debian.org team are working to make it possible to list the package tracker as the package maintainer, I believe using the old f...@packages.debian.org address. Then all co-maintainers of the package will - list themselves in Uploaders - subscribe to the package on tracker.d.o In this way, we transition away from a semantic distinction between Maintainer and Uploaders without having to change any tools. It's much less work than what you are proposing. People who want to maintain the distinction can use the fields separately but those who want maintainers to be on equal footing don't have to. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On 04/18/2018 05:01 PM, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-04-18 at 10:53, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > >> On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 10:45 -0400, The Wanderer wrote >> >>> On 2018-04-18 at 05:55, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into Maintainer and Uploaders. >>> >>> If you don't assign different meanings to "Maintainer:" and >>> "Uploaders:", what's the point in both fields existing? >> >> The Maintainer field is only allowed to list one person for historic >> reasons. So a new field was added to list additional maintainers. > > If it really is intended that the listed Maintainer be on an equal > footing with any and all listed Uploaders, and there's no semantic > difference between these fields - just the arbitrary limitation that one > of them can't have more than one entry - wouldn't it make sense to > deprecate the Maintainer: field, and move towards using Uploaders: only? > > I'm not sure that would be a good idea, but it would at least avoid the > apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the roles which seems to > have underlain some of the dispute in this case, and eliminating > meaningless redundancy in a spec is generally a good thing. > Team maintained packages usually have team's name and mailing list in the "Maintainer:" field and possibly multiple "Uploaders:".
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
Am Mittwoch, den 18.04.2018, 14:55 +0500 schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:23:23AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > As just someone who mostly maintains one package (fio - flexible > > I/O tester) I can certainly understand how you feel about that > > Lucas removed you as a maintainer. > > But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into > Maintainer and Uploaders. CMIIW, but I think some message go only to the Maintainer (e.g. bug reports) and not to all Uploaders, so at least on the technical side there is a difference. Best, Gert
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
The Wanderer writes ("Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian"):
> If it really is intended that the listed Maintainer be on an equal
> footing with any and all listed Uploaders, and there's no semantic
> difference between these fields - just the arbitrary limitation that one
> of them can't have more than one entry - wouldn't it make sense to
> deprecate the Maintainer: field, and move towards using Uploaders: only?
IMO it would be better to abolish Uploaders in favour of fixing the
original spec bug in Maintainers. Also, easier, because as a
practical matter, there is a lot of software that will fail if it
fails to find a Maintainer field but won't really mind what it
contains.
Please go ahead and push this. Last time I tried to fix it, there
were too many objections and the whole thing was obviously too much
hard work.
Ian.
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On 2018-04-18 at 10:53, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 10:45 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2018-04-18 at 05:55, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: >>> But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into >>> Maintainer and Uploaders. >> >> If you don't assign different meanings to "Maintainer:" and >> "Uploaders:", what's the point in both fields existing? > > The Maintainer field is only allowed to list one person for historic > reasons. So a new field was added to list additional maintainers. If it really is intended that the listed Maintainer be on an equal footing with any and all listed Uploaders, and there's no semantic difference between these fields - just the arbitrary limitation that one of them can't have more than one entry - wouldn't it make sense to deprecate the Maintainer: field, and move towards using Uploaders: only? I'm not sure that would be a good idea, but it would at least avoid the apparent misunderstanding of the meaning of the roles which seems to have underlain some of the dispute in this case, and eliminating meaningless redundancy in a spec is generally a good thing. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
The Wanderer writes ("Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian"):
> On 2018-04-18 at 05:55, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into
> > Maintainer and Uploaders.
>
> If you don't assign different meanings to "Maintainer:" and
> "Uploaders:", what's the point in both fields existing?
A very long time ago I foolishly wrote down that the payload of the
Maintainer field might only contain one name and address. (I wrote
that the Maintainer field was in RFC822 recipient field syntax.)
Some people foolishly and noncompliantly uploaded packages where the
"phrase" part of their name contained a comma.
Defensive tooling which would detect or reject syntactically invalid
packages was not yet written then.
Instead, tools grew to tolerate commas here rather than treat them as
separators (because they would mishandle the erroneous packages).
When people decided that multiple maintainers were a good idea they
invented a new field name Uploaders, because changing all the existing
tools' understanding of Maintainer was too much work (politically and
technically). We have been teaching all tools about Uploaders since.
Nowadays this mess is entangled with the arguments about whether
maintainership data ought to be primarily recorded in the source
package at all.
No-one has managed to get consensus to fix it.
Ian.
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 10:45 -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-04-18 at 05:55, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:23:23AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > > > > As just someone who mostly maintains one package (fio - flexible > > > I/O tester) I can certainly understand how you feel about that > > > Lucas removed you as a maintainer. > > > > But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into > > Maintainer and Uploaders. > > If you don't assign different meanings to "Maintainer:" and > "Uploaders:", what's the point in both fields existing? The Maintainer field is only allowed to list one person for historic reasons. So a new field was added to list additional maintainers. Ansgar
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On 2018-04-18 at 05:55, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:23:23AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >> As just someone who mostly maintains one package (fio - flexible >> I/O tester) I can certainly understand how you feel about that >> Lucas removed you as a maintainer. > > But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into > Maintainer and Uploaders. If you don't assign different meanings to "Maintainer:" and "Uploaders:", what's the point in both fields existing? -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
Hi Andrey. Andrey Rahmatullin - 18.04.18, 11:55: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:23:23AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > As just someone who mostly maintains one package (fio - flexible I/O > > tester) I can certainly understand how you feel about that Lucas > > removed you as a maintainer. > > But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into > Maintainer and Uploaders. Well I did and thus read Ian Campbell´s mail¹ and the commit he linked to differently: > Not just as a comaintainer according to > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/gjots2/commit/ > 202ae3f586cbe3a7867b881389382d3ee75b39a9 which > relegated > the previous maintainer to Uploaders. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/04/msg00297.html That repo appears to be gone meanwhile… Thanks, -- Martin
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
Rolf, you have made your point about the conflict that arose about a package which you may or may not have been maintaining. Fair enough. However, from your last two messages, it seems to me that you feel wronged by active members on this mailing list in quite a few ways beyond what has been happening with that package. It appears that you would very much like (if not demand) some sort of remediation for being wronged. I think that this will only reflect badly on yourself and won't have any other effect, so here's a bit of unsolicited advice: Please stop digging. Thank you. -Hilko
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 11:23:23AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > As just someone who mostly maintains one package (fio - flexible I/O > tester) I can certainly understand how you feel about that Lucas removed > you as a maintainer. But that didn't happen, unless you put different meaning into Maintainer and Uploaders. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
Dear Rolf.
Rolf Leggewie - 18.04.18, 07:19:
[…]
> @ALL, it seems like no matter what I say, no matter how I explain my
> reasons, I cannot convince quite a number of people. So, I plan not
> to waste my time on trying anymore. Steve is much better of getting
> to the relevant points anyhow. I certainly made mistakes, I would
> say they are mostly cosmetic, questions of form I was simply unaware
> of, but others perceive them differently. I apologized, owned up to
> it and changed course. I had no ill intentions. Yet, I'm still the
> bad guy for a good number of people (I've been called "nasty" in
> private mail).
As just someone who mostly maintains one package (fio - flexible I/O
tester) I can certainly understand how you feel about that Lucas removed
you as a maintainer. Even after all my experience with letting go I bet
at least initially I would feel quite similar in case someone did this
to one of the packages I maintain.
While I do not agree to everything you wrote I think it was harmful when
other members of the community apparently tried to find everything that
you – in their opinion – did wrong.
Right now I do feel somewhat disturbed about the tone of some mails in
this thread as I received it. From my experience in other communities
like KDE or Devuan as well as (at many other times or other places) also
Debian I know it is possible to discuss and work together in a more
constructive way.
However…
> I get all this for maintaining a number of packages for 10+ years in
> Debian and when I complain that one of the "packages I maintain" (!)
> AKA "my package" is stolen from me? I get basically told (by some)
> that my packages in collab-maint are free-for-all to upload as they
> please, demote me and disrespect my work as they please, I basically
> get told that I'm not free to choose NOT to host on such a service by
> somebody else. WTF? The aggressors who were the ones to violate
> proper processes on the other hand get a public pat on the back for
> manly behaviour and "no need to apologize" for failing twice. OK, I
> got the message...
I wonder whether you let others move you into a victim position ("OK, I
got the message…" and "no need to apologize" as in I want an apology in
order to be happy again). I think an apology towards you would be
appropriate and helpful here. However I´d ask myself whether depending
on it would be helpful for me.
I noticed a lot of blaming in this thread from quite some people.
However… all that blaming does it to fix the current situation in place.
Cause blaming is moving all power to the other party aka "if only they
would change, I would be okay". However, it does not work that way.
I appreciate that you did your best to own your actions and while I do
not use gjots2 and I am not sure I use one of your other packages I
appreciate and am thankful for the effort you spent on Debian packages.
Thank you.
I do not advice you how to deal with what you experienced and I can
certainly understand if you are not that motivated to move on with
contributing to Debian at the moment.
Debian got as big and successful as it is due to a lot of people working
on it. Blaming each other is not going to help. We are all in this human
experience together… no one is any more perfect or less perfect than the
other. I wonder what is beyond right or wrong… and whether what happened
may be just be what happened without it being the fault of anybody.
Fault-free living… how could that look like?
Thank you.
--
Martin
Re: problems in gjots2 and Debian
On 18.04.2018 13:19, Rolf Leggewie wrote: > I get all this for maintaining a number of packages for 10+ years in > Debian BTW, one of the first packages if not THE first package was gjots2. And I had to go through a lengthy and cumbersome MIA process to take over. Seems like the rules do not apply for DD buddies...
