Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
Hi Harald, On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 10:41:16AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote: On 10/10/09 08:02, Charles Plessy wrote: Hello Harald, unless you are ready to take responsability for any breakage introduced by the version change in this library, which basically means to hijack the package, I strongly recommend against including the upstream update in the bug correction that you prepared. I understand, but AFAICS upstream has included many of Joe's changes/fixes into the new version. The open problems listed in the BTS were easy to fix. The worst part was cleaning up the patches done fore Debian, because not all of Joe's changes were included. This said, despite its maintainer seems to be active with other Debian activities, it looks like libkarma needs more care. Maybe Joe Nahmias can give us his thoughts about having co-maintainers or transferring libkarma to a team? Of course I would be glad if I can forward the new package to Joe. I don't want to hijack his package, it is just to get rid of the bugs. Maybe there are not so many Rio Karma users out there, anyway. Sorry for being a bit AWOL. I'd be happy to review your changes and if you're interested, and have the requisite device, have you as a co-maintainer. --Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
On 10/12/09 07:02, Charles Plessy wrote: Fixing bugs is very welcome, especially RC ones. Actually, you can save time to fix more RC bugs by not fixing the less important ones in the packages that you try to rescue :) I still recommend to not include a new upstream release in the NMU you are proposing. Especially because the package is poorly maintained: the side effect of the NMU is to rescue the package from removal, so if nobody feels responsible for it, it is safer to not introduce changes that can introduce new bugs. Sorry to say, but this is counterproductive. AFAICS the new upstream version works better than the old one, and it includes almost all bug fixes done for Debian. If you suggest to ignore upstream's new version and add patches to the old version instead, just because the package maintainer is not interested anymore, then this leads to just another dead package. I want to do an NMU _because_ the package is poorly maintained. libkarma has to be rescued. There is no alternative to this package. Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 15:42:21 Harald Dunkel wrote: On 10/12/09 07:02, Charles Plessy wrote: Fixing bugs is very welcome, especially RC ones. Actually, you can save time to fix more RC bugs by not fixing the less important ones in the packages that you try to rescue :) I still recommend to not include a new upstream release in the NMU you are proposing. Especially because the package is poorly maintained: the side effect of the NMU is to rescue the package from removal, so if nobody feels responsible for it, it is safer to not introduce changes that can introduce new bugs. Sorry to say, but this is counterproductive. AFAICS the new upstream version works better than the old one, and it includes almost all bug fixes done for Debian. If you suggest to ignore upstream's new version and add patches to the old version instead, just because the package maintainer is not interested anymore, then this leads to just another dead package. I want to do an NMU _because_ the package is poorly maintained. libkarma has to be rescued. There is no alternative to this package. There is a established procedure for taking maintainership for a package from a non-responsive maintainer. If you'd like to take maintainership, please start that process. In the meantime a suitable NMU should be prepared until (if) you become the maintainer. If you don't have time, I wonder if this is a good place for collab-maint to step in? -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
Le Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:54:02PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. a écrit : On Wednesday 14 October 2009 15:42:21 Harald Dunkel wrote: I want to do an NMU _because_ the package is poorly maintained. libkarma has to be rescued. There is no alternative to this package. There is a established procedure for taking maintainership for a package from a non-responsive maintainer. If you'd like to take maintainership, please start that process. In the meantime a suitable NMU should be prepared until (if) you become the maintainer. If you don't have time, I wonder if this is a good place for collab-maint to step in? Hi Harald, your NMU would increase the quality of the current package, but would not make it better maintained, since it is de facto abandonned. Such packages are indeed in danger of being removed from Debian. We have to be realistic and do what our manpower allows us to. If you really think that libkarma has to be rescued (and there are for sure good reasons), but do not want to maintain it, just lead this package to a new home, for instance as indicated by Boyd Stephen, and do not hesitate to ask for help on this list. Such “QA” work is also really welcome and appreciated, as bugfixing is. They are two sides of the same coin. I hope this does not sound too bureaucratic, but this is a much more long-term solution to a problem which is not that the package is outdated, but that it is abandonned. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
On Thursday 15,October,2009 08:30 AM, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:54:02PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. a écrit : On Wednesday 14 October 2009 15:42:21 Harald Dunkel wrote: I want to do an NMU _because_ the package is poorly maintained. libkarma has to be rescued. There is no alternative to this package. There is a established procedure for taking maintainership for a package from a non-responsive maintainer. If you'd like to take maintainership, please start that process. In the meantime a suitable NMU should be prepared until (if) you become the maintainer. If you don't have time, I wonder if this is a good place for collab-maint to step in? Hi Harald, your NMU would increase the quality of the current package, but would not make it better maintained, since it is de facto abandonned. Such packages are indeed in danger of being removed from Debian. We have to be realistic and do what our manpower allows us to. If you really think that libkarma has to be rescued (and there are for sure good reasons), but do not want to maintain it, just lead this package to a new home, for instance as indicated by Boyd Stephen, and do not hesitate to ask for help on this list. Such “QA” work is also really welcome and appreciated, as bugfixing is. They are two sides of the same coin. I hope this does not sound too bureaucratic, but this is a much more long-term solution to a problem which is not that the package is outdated, but that it is abandonned. Have a nice day, Just FYI, libkarma-cil be a build-dependency of Banshee, eventhough the karma-sharp.pc file has been broken for ages and Banshee hadn't actually had Karma support since before 1.4.3 (current version=1.5.1) due to this. If nobody else is willing to take care of it, how about putting it under the Debian CLI Libraries Team? That would take care of the whole libkarma being unmaintained issue. If Harald would join the team, he can maintain it there, and if he's busy someone else, myself included, could fill in for him. -- Kind regards, Chow Loong Jin (GPG: 0x8F02A411) Ubuntu Contributing Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
On 10/10/09 08:02, Charles Plessy wrote: Hello Harald, unless you are ready to take responsability for any breakage introduced by the version change in this library, which basically means to hijack the package, I strongly recommend against including the upstream update in the bug correction that you prepared. I understand, but AFAICS upstream has included many of Joe's changes/fixes into the new version. The open problems listed in the BTS were easy to fix. The worst part was cleaning up the patches done fore Debian, because not all of Joe's changes were included. This said, despite its maintainer seems to be active with other Debian activities, it looks like libkarma needs more care. Maybe Joe Nahmias can give us his thoughts about having co-maintainers or transferring libkarma to a team? Of course I would be glad if I can forward the new package to Joe. I don't want to hijack his package, it is just to get rid of the bugs. Maybe there are not so many Rio Karma users out there, anyway. Regards Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
Le Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 10:41:16AM +0200, Harald Dunkel a écrit : I don't want to hijack his package, it is just to get rid of the bugs. Maybe there are not so many Rio Karma users out there, anyway. Fixing bugs is very welcome, especially RC ones. Actually, you can save time to fix more RC bugs by not fixing the less important ones in the packages that you try to rescue :) I still recommend to not include a new upstream release in the NMU you are proposing. Especially because the package is poorly maintained: the side effect of the NMU is to rescue the package from removal, so if nobody feels responsible for it, it is safer to not introduce changes that can introduce new bugs. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
Le Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 06:31:23AM +0200, Harald Dunkel a écrit : - The NMU includes a new version from upstream, i.e. a new libkarma_0.1.1.orig.tar.gz . Should the new version number be 0.1.1-0 or 0.1.1-0.1? Hello Harald, unless you are ready to take responsability for any breakage introduced by the version change in this library, which basically means to hijack the package, I strongly recommend against including the upstream update in the bug correction that you prepared. This said, despite its maintainer seems to be active with other Debian activities, it looks like libkarma needs more care. Maybe Joe Nahmias can give us his thoughts about having co-maintainers or transferring libkarma to a team? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
NMU for libkarma (Rio Karma tools)?
Hi folks, To fix several bugs I would like to do an NMU for libkarma. Two weeks ago I sent an EMail to the package maintainer asking for his permission, but there was no response. Two problems: - I would need a sponsor to review and upload the new package. - The NMU includes a new version from upstream, i.e. a new libkarma_0.1.1.orig.tar.gz . Should the new version number be 0.1.1-0 or 0.1.1-0.1? Regards Harri http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libkarma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
