On 04/18/2011 03:03 PM, Soren Hansen wrote: > Making the package lintian is a great goal!
It's not a goal, it's a requirement for any DD before uploading to the archive. > I don't think any of the issues > with the packages would be considered RC problems. Missing (build-)dependencies are considered RC issues in Debian, blocking the release of Debian itself. As for the fact that you had to release it with a schedule date, I *guessed* it myself. Only, saying it explicitly would have helped communication. > "most" being the operative word. You've proposed a bunch of changes, all > of them in the same branch. Can't you just pull each individual patches that you feel ok with? Is it simply not technically possible with bzr? Or is it that with bzr, you can only do a big merge of a given branch? With Git, I'd send a bunch of patches, and you'd pick-up the one one want, and reject the one with issues. That's what I was expecting, sorry if I didn't get it. So, in the future, I should do one branch per proposed merge, for each individual topic, right? That's really not convenient, but I can do that if it is a bzr requirement, so that we can work faster this way... Note that I am *not* discussing git vz bzr (I'm not interested in such a waste of time), I'm just trying to find a work-flow solution. > Also, even though I asked you not to, you went and rebased your branch, > so I had to start over with my review. That cost me quite a bit of time. I did it, because I thought it would *ease* your work, with each individual patch being one a single commit, so that you would cherry-pick the one that you would feel ok with. Now, I do understand that doesn't fit the work-flow of bzr, and that I have to deal with so many small branches. Right? > Admittedly, I get upset and extremely frustrated when people have issues > with me or my work, but instead of confronting me, discuss it with other > people. It's exactly how our collaboration started (instead of > discussing changes with me, you posted on debian-devel to find other > people who wanted to help fix my work). No, that's a bad interpretation. I've been trying to motivate others to work on Openstack packaging for Debian. That isn't in opposition with working with upstream. Let's hope such threads will not definitively push people away from contributing. >> [...] > > [...] and you've proposed them as one, great big branch. I do now understand what you want/need. Many tiny little branches. I'll do that in the future. I hope you can bare with that (first and last) big one. >>> If you expect more than that, I suggest you discuss it with me >> What more do you think we have to discuss, since last week? > > You seem dissatisfied with the process. If that's the case, that's > something we should discuss. I'm really happy you replied to me (privately) so that we can go forward. This goes on the right direction, and I was looking for it. >>> instead of being passive aggressive in other fora about it. >> I reread myself 3 times to make sure I wasn't aggressive, and made >> sure I wouldn't hurt you. Where was I? > > For instance, when you say: > >> My package is lintian clean (the Ubuntu package, really, is not), > > and > >> I have done loads of patches to have the package to fit in Debian, >> comply with the policy, and be lintian clean This is only reality: lintian -Ii through multiple pages of issues at me. I didn't say: hooouuuuu, so bad Debian packaging... I just wrote that there was issues lintian showed me, and I fixed them. Reviewing what I did, there's 14 entries that I added in debian/changelog. 9 of them are absolute necessity, and maybe 7 are Debian specific (eg: wouldn't be needed in Ubuntu). That makes only 2 misses in your packaging (some missing dependencies like adduser orpython-amqplib), which is a quite decent score for such a complex package. Never the less, that didn't make it a fit for Debian considering we've hit hard differences between the 2 Unix, especially with the init scripts which needed rewrite. Do you feel more comfortable with the above? > ..along with your above mentioned lecturing on Debian Policy, I feel > you're degrading the work we put into the packages. I'd appreciate if you tried not to take anything as personal attacks. I will try even harder to only write about technical things only. I *have* to stick with the Debian policy. My point isn't to do "lecturing on Debian policy", but to explain what I'm doing and why. > [...] > > Also, pointing out that you've replied to part of it in private seems > passive aggressive or at least disrespectful to me. I sincerely hope, your master god of Openstack and Ubuntu packaging highness, that I wont hurt you again. :) Let's move forward. Thomas P.S: I'm already really tired of this kind of waste of time. I hope it is the last time that I have to reply on non-technical issues, and I wish you restful (deserved) holidays. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dac7f83.9070...@goirand.fr
