Hi Alexander! On 02/24/2014 09:59 AM, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote: > Unfortunately I missed to fixup pair of changes when build package, > that's why second revision was uploaded right after first. > You are talking about revision -1 which really had some issues. > Please comment on the last version available.
Sure, I can have a look at the second revision. But you could also just asked the FTP team to set the package on REJECT to be able to sort out the issues, then do a clean upload. I usually try to keep a clean package history. >> If you had incorporated some of his changes, you'd just have use the >> default rules file from the template. >> >> You should also have asked yourself why Uwe had added those overrides >> and not just silently commented them out. If someone adds extra >> overrides, he usually has very good reasons. You should have asked Uwe >> about that. > I think you did not get clean with this or that's Uwe who mislead you. Yep. I misunderstood Uwe. From his first comments it appeared to me that exactly that had happened. So, I apologize to you Alexander and take my statements back. > Those commented out overrides were left in rules file from my previous > experiments, and not needed anymore. And they have nothing with Uwe's > package, I believe. Alright, thanks for the explanation. > I can count all changes I took from his work: > Arch: linux-any (totally forget that SocketCAN is Linux specific) > Several strings in description field. > > And that's all. =\ Ok, it appeared to me that the situation was the complete opposite of that, i.e. you took Uwe's work and put your name onto it. Thanks for the clarification. >> >> The package currently also includes the debian/README.source template >> and git-related files (.gitignore, gbp.conf). > Template README.source was also removed in -2 revision. Good! > As for .gitignore and gbp.conf, this package is maintained under git > and git-buildpackage and I see no reason, why thees files should not be > included in debian/ True. I am using gbp as well and I completely forgot about that. The files shouldn't pop up in the actual package. > I think some gbp related info should goes to README.source. One day > I'll write it. Good idea! >> >> As someone who is sponsoring very often and has some experience with >> reviewing packages now, can-utils wouldn't have passed my quality >> requirements in its current state. > I could not agree with you if we speak about revision -2. Well, unless you have fixed the copyright issues that Uwe has mentioned, you will get a REJECT with absolute certainty. Did you fix the copyright information? Are the sources from Volkswagen actually covered by a free license? > Conclusion: > Looks like Uwe decided that I modified his package, removed him from > Maintainer and broke all around. And he started offense instead of > discussion. Well, you see what poor communication leads to. When you decide to let him join as a comaintainer, you should communicate such changes, especially before doing uploads. >>> Package is in new queue right now and will be soon available in >>> unstable repository. >> >> It's actually been set to not be reviewed before February 28th to be >> able to discuss this matter first. > Well, I remember time when packages were held in new for 2-3 months =) They still are. Depends on the package, Look at zfs-utils which has been in NEW for 6 months now. Obviously no one dares to touch it. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org