On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 06:54:17 +1030 Ron <r...@debian.org> wrote: > You then had the gall to angrily insist that while you thought he might > be a better maintainer than me, it was still my responsibility to do the > work to fix all the obvious things that others had missed in their fork > (which he hadn't contributed anything to either). I'm afraid that's not > how encouraging volunteers to contribute their time for you works ... > sorry if this is news to you.
It was perfectly reasonable to ask that if you have any pretense at all of actually doing the work expected of your maintainer position, you'd contribute to creating packaging for the new upstream version, instead of only attacking the people working on it. > things. But because the increasingly ill-named technical committee has once > again refused to stick its collective necks out to actually offer technical > advice when explicitly asked to. We chopped some heads off the hydra, but > Explaining things in careful detail has had every appearance of being a > complete waste of my time whichever way this might have ended up. The only The fundamental problem with most of your technical arguments was that they were arguments about upstream development, not about packaging. Even if they were 100% true, they still would not justify how you have handled the Debian package. If you disagree with upstream that way, you should try to convince them, and if that fails and you care enough, create a new upstream fork. Instead, you turned the Debian packaging into a practical fork. That's not the right place for hosting a new fork. You also obviously did a bad job of maintaining your fork (given the complete lack of development). Your attitude seems to have been that you insist on keeping the original GLOBAL out of Debian, do no development at all yourself, and if anyone has problems with your fork you insist that they do the work of developing it. That's not reasonable at all.
