On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:09:55PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
> the package into a better maintained state.
Lucas' proposal discussed in this thread is about adding a lightweight
procedure to mark obviously unm
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >Ian Jackson writes:
> >> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
> >> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
> >> maintainer thinks it's more or less
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: pcalendar
Version: 3.3.0
Upstream Author: Mar'yan Rachynskyy
URL: http://linuxorg.sourceforge.net/
License: GPL-3+
Description: application to track women menstrual cycles
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:52:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
> priority that the problems a
Hi,
I'm wondering, before a package will be orphaned is it possible/
needful the owner to ask for help or to express the reasons?
Regards
gnugr
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 04:20:43PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> If someone notices that a package is in need of greater attention, but
> cannot commit to attending it themselves, it's important that the
> packages is marked at least as needing help.
>
> I understand the entire point here is to
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:50:46PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan the
> package.
Orphaning the package it not the final outcome. The goal is to get packages
salvaged. See the "two activities" explained here:
http://lists.debian.org/de
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:06:34AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it works?
The "without objection" approach would require a reasonable delay for people to
raise objections (some say two months). The ACK/NACK approach allows to reach
Hi Lucas,
As you know I agree with you on most aspects.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I find third-party reviews
> and ACKs a good way to reinforce the feeling that the orphaning is the
> right thing to do.
Absolutely.
> Note that it's often users who
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:06:57AM +1100, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> If bug was unanswered for let's say two months the package is free to orphan
Some prefer no delay, some prefer one month, some prefer two months. I
originally wanted one month, but I got convinced by others to drop the delay.
Now
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:09:07AM +, Bart Martens wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes:
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > >> Someone wrote:
> > >> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get an
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:12PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
> > "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
> > package as its ne
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:50:10PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Bart Martens writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >> Steve Langasek writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >> >> > 4. When/if consensus has be
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> >> Someone wrote:
> >> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you
> >> > should go
> >> > ahead with the orphaning,
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Daniel Kahn Gillmor
* Package name: trac-translatedpages
Version : 1.0~r11919
Upstream Author : Mikhail Gusarov
* URL : http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/TranslatedPagesMacro
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Descrip
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term
> "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a
> package as its new maintainer. The term "salvage", in my opinion, we
> can define as a p
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Don't we expect the same adaptability of anyone trying to become a
> co-maintainer of any other package?
No, because in the typical comaintenance situation, the other maintainers
will teach the newcomer how to package according to the team standards,
rather than having
It may be possible to address both concerns in a different way.
1. Implement PPAs. The code is open source, get it working first, and
enhance it later.
2. DDs and DMs upload source-only to their individual PPA(s). The PPA
build farm builds the package on all the architectures Debian cares
about
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe
>> won't work in common cases? It's just applying existing NMU rules with
>> a little more liberalism to increase activity in under-maintained
>> packages, so I personally
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Okay, well, I guess I return to my previous statement, then. I don't
>> think your proposed solution will work for the more common cases.
> I respect your opinion, so I'm just curious which part do you believe
> w
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 474 (new: 3)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 136 (new: 1)
Total number of packages request
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Gilbert writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
>>> that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
>>> about the o
Michael Gilbert writes:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I certainly have no objection to people doing this, but I'm not sure
>> that's really what we're discussing here. I think the thread is more
>> about the ongoing issue that we seem to have in Debian where the
>> ex
Michael Gilbert writes:
> Again, I think it comes down to language. If we view salvaging as a
> process that is initially meant to help the existing maintainer, then it
> makes sense to continue to work with the package as he/she intended.
> When the 3 month clock expires, and the salvager becom
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As I've said many times now, the liberal NMU would not be a license for
>> packaging style changes. In fact, no NMU is allowed to make those
>> changes (the fact that people are doing it is apparently a social issue,
>> and solutions to those
Michael Gilbert writes:
> As I've said many times now, the liberal NMU would not be a license for
> packaging style changes. In fact, no NMU is allowed to make those
> changes (the fact that people are doing it is apparently a social issue,
> and solutions to those are hard). It is instead more
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Per Andersson
* Package name: python-django-mezzanine-events
Version : 0.1~pre
Upstream Author : St Barnabas Theological College
* URL : http://github.com/stbarnabas/mezzanine-events
* License : Other, BSD-like
Programm
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
>> the package into a better maintained state.
>
> Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad main
On 25.10.2012 21:09, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (10-day delayed) nmus as needed to bring
> the package into a better maintained state.
Please let's not go that road. Mixing-up the concept of a bad maintained
package and the concept of NMUs together does not
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> When fixing non important bugs, or improving the package quality, like
>> switching to format 3 source, arranging the rules file, and so on, I fear
>> it will be very difficult to find a sponsor for these nmus.
>
> That is because those ch
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Jean-Michel Vourgère wrote:
> On Thursday 25 October 2012 19:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> (...)
>> I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
>> bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
>> enough). With that, I wou
On Thursday 25 October 2012 19:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> (...)
> I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
> bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
> enough). With that, I would like to suggest rewriting steps 2-4 as:
> 2. Salvager uploa
I think this proposal is a little bit too complicated and not straightforward
enough.
Clearly we have two different situations:
* Maintainer is not active and we want to orphan a particular package.
(just to orphan without adoption)
For this case filing a bug "please orphan this package"
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:58:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> [...]
> > All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
> > a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
> > rejec
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
[...]
> All the pings in the world won't help if you are sending them via
> a path that discards them. I know several large US ISPs that automatically
> reject what they consider SPAM without the customer's knowledge. If
> the sen
On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 20:10 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > But my point was: if we're going to be dropping the uploaded binary
> in the first
> > place, why do we have to upload it? Source-only uploads would make
> so much more
> > sense.
>
> Only theoretical. Practical it would mean we will have
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:09:55 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> I would prefer to see even more autonomy for the salvager and less
> bugging of various lists (ITPs on -devel are already distracting
> enough). With that, I would like to suggest rewriting steps 2-4 as:
>
> 2. Salvager uploads liberal (1
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another
> maintainer's packages"):
>> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it
>> works?
>
> I absolutely agree with this.
>
> If we adopt a "without objection"
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:16AM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
>
> So yes, I say long silence from the entire community *including the
> package maintainer(s)* probably means it's safer to orphan the package
> than not. I would probably send a few pings during the one month
> period though. I wo
[vangelis mouhtsis]
> Can please someone explain why a package should be orphaned
> from maintaining? (i hope the reason is not lack of maintainers)
Yes it is. Or more precisely, every package needs a maintainer with:
1) the skills to maintain it (familiarity not only with Debian
packaging i
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Per Andersson
* Package name: python-icalendar
Version : 3.1
Upstream Author : Plone Foundation
* URL : http://icalendar.readthedocs.org/
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description : iCalendar parser and
Hi,
Can please someone explain why a package should be orphaned
from maintaining? (i hope the reason is not lack of maintainers)
regards
gnugr
Gergely Nagy wrote:
>Ian Jackson writes:
>
>> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
>> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
>> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
>> priority that the problems are tolera
Ian Jackson writes:
> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and
> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the
> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough
> priority that the problems are tolerable.
Then the maintainer has
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:11PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andreas Tille writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
> packages"):
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
Thibaut Paumard writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> Le 25/10/2012 15:50, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan
> > the package. The salvager should surely be adding themselves as
> > an Uploader.
>
> Is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/10/2012 15:50, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I'm also not that keen on the idea that the outcome is to orphan
> the package. The salvager should surely be adding themselves as
> an Uploader.
Is that in addition to or instead of orphaning the packag
Hi,
I want to update xflr5 package which has the DMUA field. I'll remove
this field, because it will be stopped working [1].
Could you give me a permission to upload this package using the new
interface?
I attached a diff between 6.07-1 and 6.08-1~exp1. Please see it for more
details.
[1] http:/
Andreas Tille writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
> > that think "it would work", and people that think "it would not w
Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: [SUMMARY/PROPOSAL] Orphaning another maintainer's
packages"):
> Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it
> works?
I absolutely agree with this.
If we adopt a "without objection" standard then the whole process can
be a lot simpler too. There
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:15:48 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus
> > you could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections
> > result in disputes resolved
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10:09AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> However, so far, it seems that the discussion is split between people
> that think "it would work", and people that think "it would not work".
> Maybe we could try for a few months, and if it does not work, fix it?
+1
Kind regards
Bart Martens writes:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> Steve Langasek writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:40:39PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> >> > 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
>> >> >retitling and reass
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you should
>> > go
>> > ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and
>> > consensus has not been achieved. It's
Steve Langasek writes:
>> So, what will you do if:
>> - previous maintainer goes MIA
>> - Somebody wants to hija^W salvage the package and starts the procedure
>> - Nobody votes for this to happen...
>
>> Should we then leave the package forever unmaintained?
>> I don't think this is reasonable..
On 10/25/2012 07:51 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
No. We're talking here about silence *from the entire Debian developer
community* in response to a call for orphaning. That says nothing
about whether the package is orphaned. It may just mean you've managed
to send your request to the wrong place (
On 10/25/2012 02:48 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:57:12AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
I remember when I started a thread about 6 months ago,
willing to take over maintainership of a clearly unmaintained
package (since then, all other packages of this maintainer
have been
On 23/10/12 at 17:19 +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-10-23, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is an attempt at summarizing & building a proposal out of the
> > "Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal"
> > thread that was started at [1].
>
> Some years
On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus you
> could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections result in
> disputes resolved by the tech ctte) and have a +1 from me.
>
> The problem is that onc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Le 25/10/2012 01:51, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 08:38:19AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> Le Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:46:08PM +, Clint Adams a écrit :
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:48:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek
>>> wrote:
2012/10/25 Steve Langasek
> It may just mean you've managed to send
> your request to the wrong place
>
As I see, almost all debian guys are so courteous that they point to the
right place.
61 matches
Mail list logo
