Am Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 11:03:38AM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> Quoting Andreas Tille (2025-08-20 10:35:20)
> > Can you give some practical examples of packages that you would not want
> > to see covered by such a policy? That would help me better understand
> > your concerns.
>
> (reading it as the plural "you"...)
>
> I share Lucas' concern of you redefining the rules of the "debian"
> namespace at Salsa.
I understand that with “you redefining” you (=Jonas) are addressing me
personally. At the same time, I see this discussion as a broader one,
since the effects of such a policy go beyond just my actions. My mention
in Bits was intended to contribute to the improved documentation that
had been suggested in the BoFs. I am fine if the outcome differs from my
interpretation (which, I believe, is shared by several developers, even
if Lucas has rightly pointed out that it is not clearly backed by the
current documentation), and perhaps it is best if I step back a little
here to let others speak.
> For me, the concern is not tied to specific packages. I have used this
> namespace for 100s of packages to encourage collaboration but with the
> assumption that "Maintainer" and "Uploaders" still have a meaning.
>
> By using the "debian" namespace, I did not mean to invite anyone in
> Debian to do *uncoordinated* uploads (it has happened once, about a week
> ago, and that took me by surprise).
That recent uncoordinated upload shows that I am not the only one
thinking along these lines. To me, this underlines the need for clearer
documentation, so that expectations are aligned and such surprises can
be avoided in the future. Obviously, we need to discuss the best way
forward here. One concrete option could be to place clarifying
information directly in the debian/ directory, as had already been
suggested and discussed in the BoFs.
> I encourage more collaboration, but I think it is the wrong approach to
> casually redefine established constraints like this.
>
> Solo-maintained packages has some problems.
Fully ACK.
> Team-maintained packages has *other* problems - and shifting packages
> from solo- to team-maintenance without the explicit awareness of the
> maintainer is likely to cause confusion and problems.
I agree that active maintainers should always be informed in advance —
and I certainly recognize that you are very active.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
