Re: Help to clarify an issue
Em 01-01-2018 14:02, Mattia Rizzolo escreveu: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 10:47:26AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: >> On 2018-01-01 at 10:39, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 01:30:16PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: The package is orphan now and what it is seems as best can be done by who wants to do the job. >>> >>> So your argument is "the package is not developed anymore (?) and >>> was always like that, so let's not touch it too much"? >> >> I parsed his statement as meaning "Okay, since my opinion as maintainer >> of this package isn't being accepted, I'm declaring the package >> orphaned; now anyone who wants to work on it can do so". >> >> I mean, I hope I'm wrong, because orphaning would be a drastic and >> unfortunate outcome from this - but that's how I interpret it. > > Hell, no, that was definitely not what I meant. > > It probably is my fault in misunderstanding its usage of the "orphan" > word above, see "The package is orphan now". I didn't want to read "I > orphaned the package" in that, and definitely I wasn't even thinking of > that outcome. > > - https://bugs.debian.org/886013 > > Herbert: In no way I was even thinking of you giving up the package! > (Also, I believe the only person interested in the package is Jonhatan) > Please be calm everybody. I really liked to do the package. It has an not common debian/rules. But I am not in love with the package. I am a domestic user who wants to be a programmer. I do not know complex situations where different scenarios come up. My usage (computer) is simple. I do not have a camera yet, but I am more closed to libgphoto2, gphoto2, gthumb. And some python packages. Packages come and go.
Re: Help to clarify an issue
On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 10:47:26AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-01-01 at 10:39, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 01:30:16PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > >> The package is orphan now and what it is seems as best can be done > >> by who wants to do the job. > > > > So your argument is "the package is not developed anymore (?) and > > was always like that, so let's not touch it too much"? > > I parsed his statement as meaning "Okay, since my opinion as maintainer > of this package isn't being accepted, I'm declaring the package > orphaned; now anyone who wants to work on it can do so". > > I mean, I hope I'm wrong, because orphaning would be a drastic and > unfortunate outcome from this - but that's how I interpret it. Hell, no, that was definitely not what I meant. It probably is my fault in misunderstanding its usage of the "orphan" word above, see "The package is orphan now". I didn't want to read "I orphaned the package" in that, and definitely I wasn't even thinking of that outcome. - https://bugs.debian.org/886013 Herbert: In no way I was even thinking of you giving up the package! (Also, I believe the only person interested in the package is Jonhatan) -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Help to clarify an issue
Em 01-01-2018 13:39, Mattia Rizzolo escreveu: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 01:30:16PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: >> The package is orphan now and what it is seems as best >> can be done by who wants to do the job. > > So your argument is "the package is not developed anymore (?) and was > always like that, so let's not touch it too much"? No. Jonathan Dowland spent some time doing what he thinks is good. And some folks agree that is a good improve. I believe it was more than a day working on the solution. So he uses/has-more-interesting-in the software than me. > >> I honestly not angry with anyone. I mean it. >> >> Let's start the new year with good thoughts. > > Be assured nobody is angry at anybody, nor is thinking ill of you :) Thanks!
Re: Help to clarify an issue
On 2018-01-01 at 10:39, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 01:30:16PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > >> The package is orphan now and what it is seems as best can be done >> by who wants to do the job. > > So your argument is "the package is not developed anymore (?) and > was always like that, so let's not touch it too much"? I parsed his statement as meaning "Okay, since my opinion as maintainer of this package isn't being accepted, I'm declaring the package orphaned; now anyone who wants to work on it can do so". I mean, I hope I'm wrong, because orphaning would be a drastic and unfortunate outcome from this - but that's how I interpret it. -- 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: Help to clarify an issue
On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 01:30:16PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > The package is orphan now and what it is seems as best > can be done by who wants to do the job. So your argument is "the package is not developed anymore (?) and was always like that, so let's not touch it too much"? > I honestly not angry with anyone. I mean it. > > Let's start the new year with good thoughts. Be assured nobody is angry at anybody, nor is thinking ill of you :) -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Help to clarify an issue
Em 01-01-2018 12:06, Mattia Rizzolo escreveu: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 11:01:59AM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: >> It is impossible that someone has both - duc and duc-nox - installed ? > > Using the alternatives system you can have both installed, and the the > system administrator decides what provides /usr/bin/duc (but by default > keep it the -x variant). > You can also have bin:duc install /usr/bin/duc-x and keep bin:duc-nox > installing /usr/bin/duc-nox, so really the dowside for people relying on > /usr/bin/duc-nox are nil. > > I'm sorry, but IMHO you have provided no argument in favour of rejecting > Jonathan request. > Ok. I am really do not understand. The package is orphan now and what it is seems as best can be done by who wants to do the job. I honestly not angry with anyone. I mean it. Let's start the new year with good thoughts. Sincerely, Herbert
Re: Help to clarify an issue
On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 11:01:59AM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > It is impossible that someone has both - duc and duc-nox - installed ? Using the alternatives system you can have both installed, and the the system administrator decides what provides /usr/bin/duc (but by default keep it the -x variant). You can also have bin:duc install /usr/bin/duc-x and keep bin:duc-nox installing /usr/bin/duc-nox, so really the dowside for people relying on /usr/bin/duc-nox are nil. I'm sorry, but IMHO you have provided no argument in favour of rejecting Jonathan request. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Help to clarify an issue
Em 01-01-2018 10:56, The Wanderer escreveu: > On 2018-01-01 at 05:48, Herbert Fortes wrote: > >> >>> Well said, I agree 100%. >>> >>> I consider both parties to be wrong here: >>> * Jonathan went very hasty on the NMU >>> * Herbert refuses a patch for a quite annoying thing, fixing which requires >>> no effort on his side (as the submitter did all the work), without >>> providing any rationale >>> >>> It's a clear bug to me: the package behaves in a different way based on >>> whether an unrelated doodad (some X stuff) is installed or not. That breaks >>> people's muscle memory, requiring user's effort for every single machine the >>> package is installed on -- or, on every invocation, thinking "is this shell >>> on a GUI machine?". And I for one ssh to my home desktop a lot. >>> >>> "because one does not want to press tab" is a ridiculous explanation. >>> >>> Thus, Herbert: could you please tell us if you have any reason to reject the >>> fix, other than being annoyed with a NMU done in a wrong way? >> >> It seems more ridiculous to me do not want to use an alias. > > Adding an alias locally only fixes the problem locally, for one machine, > or even one person on one machine. (And - as mentioned in the bug > comments - if you're trying to share the same bashrc across multiple > machines, some of which have only duc and some of which have duc-nox, a > simple alias definition will not suffice; you'd need to write > conditional logic to determine which alias to define.) > > Diverting the installed binary to a non-conflicting name and defining an > alternative locally would avoid the latter problem, but it seems > fragile, and again only fixes the problem for one machine. > > Defining an alternative in the package, or (less optimally) having both > packages provide the same binary name with appropriate Conflicts:, fixes > the problem for everyone who uses the package - with relatively minimal > effort, and as far as I can see, zero undesirable side effects. > It is impossible that someone has both - duc and duc-nox - installed ?
Re: Help to clarify an issue
On 2018-01-01 at 05:48, Herbert Fortes wrote: > >> Well said, I agree 100%. >> >> I consider both parties to be wrong here: >> * Jonathan went very hasty on the NMU >> * Herbert refuses a patch for a quite annoying thing, fixing which requires >> no effort on his side (as the submitter did all the work), without >> providing any rationale >> >> It's a clear bug to me: the package behaves in a different way based on >> whether an unrelated doodad (some X stuff) is installed or not. That breaks >> people's muscle memory, requiring user's effort for every single machine the >> package is installed on -- or, on every invocation, thinking "is this shell >> on a GUI machine?". And I for one ssh to my home desktop a lot. >> >> "because one does not want to press tab" is a ridiculous explanation. >> >> Thus, Herbert: could you please tell us if you have any reason to reject the >> fix, other than being annoyed with a NMU done in a wrong way? > > It seems more ridiculous to me do not want to use an alias. Adding an alias locally only fixes the problem locally, for one machine, or even one person on one machine. (And - as mentioned in the bug comments - if you're trying to share the same bashrc across multiple machines, some of which have only duc and some of which have duc-nox, a simple alias definition will not suffice; you'd need to write conditional logic to determine which alias to define.) Diverting the installed binary to a non-conflicting name and defining an alternative locally would avoid the latter problem, but it seems fragile, and again only fixes the problem for one machine. Defining an alternative in the package, or (less optimally) having both packages provide the same binary name with appropriate Conflicts:, fixes the problem for everyone who uses the package - with relatively minimal effort, and as far as I can see, zero undesirable side effects. -- 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: Help to clarify an issue
> Well said, I agree 100%. > > I consider both parties to be wrong here: > * Jonathan went very hasty on the NMU > * Herbert refuses a patch for a quite annoying thing, fixing which requires > no effort on his side (as the submitter did all the work), without > providing any rationale > > It's a clear bug to me: the package behaves in a different way based on > whether an unrelated doodad (some X stuff) is installed or not. That breaks > people's muscle memory, requiring user's effort for every single machine the > package is installed on -- or, on every invocation, thinking "is this shell > on a GUI machine?". And I for one ssh to my home desktop a lot. > > "because one does not want to press tab" is a ridiculous explanation. > > Thus, Herbert: could you please tell us if you have any reason to reject the > fix, other than being annoyed with a NMU done in a wrong way? > It seems more ridiculous to me do not want to use an alias.
Re: Help to clarify an issue
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 06:38:20PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 01:23:51PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > > Can someone read the bug report[0] an give > > an second opinion? > > > > [0] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885404 > > > > We disagree when an NMU is necessary and how > > important the request is. > > wow - wtf. > > I'll keep my comments here structured: > > 1) I believe Jonathan is very very hasty on making NMUs > a) whilst true that NMUs today are seen very much with a nicer eye than > in the past, it's still considered not something to do lightly, not > even when somebody is on the LowNMU list or the package is in > collab-maint > b) also, upload an NMU the day after saying he has a patch and 3 days > after the original bug report is totally hasty, no matter the delay > c) and usually as soon as the maintainer replies to a bug all the > intentions to NMU drops in favour of a team upload (unless the > maintainer asks for a NMU, as it often happens) > 2) I totally don't understand what's Herbert's problem with the >proposal, providing /usr/bin/duc from both the regular and -nox >package sounds a very nice idea to me Well said, I agree 100%. I consider both parties to be wrong here: * Jonathan went very hasty on the NMU * Herbert refuses a patch for a quite annoying thing, fixing which requires no effort on his side (as the submitter did all the work), without providing any rationale It's a clear bug to me: the package behaves in a different way based on whether an unrelated doodad (some X stuff) is installed or not. That breaks people's muscle memory, requiring user's effort for every single machine the package is installed on -- or, on every invocation, thinking "is this shell on a GUI machine?". And I for one ssh to my home desktop a lot. "because one does not want to press tab" is a ridiculous explanation. Thus, Herbert: could you please tell us if you have any reason to reject the fix, other than being annoyed with a NMU done in a wrong way? > Summary: please just stop meta-discussing whether or not a NMU was the > appropriate action to take, and start discussing the actual bug, with > neither party being so stubborn as it looks from my side. Yeah, Jonathan's error was formal, while the bug applies to actual functionality. Meow! -- // If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately // cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple // of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all // your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.
Re: Help to clarify an issue
Em 31-12-2017 15:38, Mattia Rizzolo escreveu: > Hello, > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 01:23:51PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: >> Can someone read the bug report[0] an give >> an second opinion? >> >> [0] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885404 >> >> We disagree when an NMU is necessary and how >> important the request is. > > wow - wtf. > > I'll keep my comments here structured: > > 1) I believe Jonathan is very very hasty on making NMUs > a) whilst true that NMUs today are seen very much with a nicer eye than > in the past, it's still considered not something to do lightly, not > even when somebody is on the LowNMU list or the package is in > collab-maint > b) also, upload an NMU the day after saying he has a patch and 3 days > after the original bug report is totally hasty, no matter the delay > c) and usually as soon as the maintainer replies to a bug all the > intentions to NMU drops in favour of a team upload (unless the > maintainer asks for a NMU, as it often happens) > 2) I totally don't understand what's Herbert's problem with the >proposal, providing /usr/bin/duc from both the regular and -nox >package sounds a very nice idea to me > > The problem is: Why think about this if an alias, an alias, gives what he wants. Why spend more than a minute with this. > Summary: please just stop meta-discussing whether or not a NMU was the > appropriate action to take, and start discussing the actual bug, with > neither party being so stubborn as it looks from my side. I sent an email to mentors because the way things are going he will make another upload. No delay, not nothing. Just upload. I am stopping.
Re: Help to clarify an issue
Hello, On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 01:23:51PM -0200, Herbert Fortes wrote: > Can someone read the bug report[0] an give > an second opinion? > > [0] - https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885404 > > We disagree when an NMU is necessary and how > important the request is. wow - wtf. I'll keep my comments here structured: 1) I believe Jonathan is very very hasty on making NMUs a) whilst true that NMUs today are seen very much with a nicer eye than in the past, it's still considered not something to do lightly, not even when somebody is on the LowNMU list or the package is in collab-maint b) also, upload an NMU the day after saying he has a patch and 3 days after the original bug report is totally hasty, no matter the delay c) and usually as soon as the maintainer replies to a bug all the intentions to NMU drops in favour of a team upload (unless the maintainer asks for a NMU, as it often happens) 2) I totally don't understand what's Herbert's problem with the proposal, providing /usr/bin/duc from both the regular and -nox package sounds a very nice idea to me Summary: please just stop meta-discussing whether or not a NMU was the appropriate action to take, and start discussing the actual bug, with neither party being so stubborn as it looks from my side. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
