Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Hello, I hope everything is OK on your side. As you probably know, Debian Wheezy has been released and this means that the freeze is now over. So this is maybe a good time to resume the discussion. Peter are you planning to resume your work on dma? If you don't have the time maybe you should ask for some help? An other thing to consider are the patches that have not been merged upstream. It would be interesting to know your position about them. Are you considering this package as a fork? If it's the case, maybe we could make both your fork and dma live into the archive in different packages? This would help to clarify the situation. Kind regards Laurent Bigonville -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Peter, On 12.09.2012 11:08, Peter Pentchev wrote: In the past week I have tried to pick up my Debian work and, yes, I will indeed try to update dma to a (much, much) more recent upstream version very soon. are there any news on that? dma has a recent history of RC bugs, one being NMUed and the other one left - #697871 - leaving dma unsuitable for a release. In fact, since you didn't care dma was removed from Debian Testing and Wheezy will be consequently without dma at all. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Hi, On 12.09.2012 11:08, Peter Pentchev wrote: In the past week I have tried to pick up my Debian work and, yes, I will indeed try to update dma to a (much, much) more recent upstream version very soon. that sounds good. Do you have a rough estimate when you will find time to synchronize the Debian package with upstream? As it looks to me, you two also disagree about the usefulness of some patches. Is there a roadmap what to do with them? Note, from my - ignorant - position it is almost always suboptimal to carry invasive non-mergeable patches in the long term. Given Simon also provides Debian packages, would you be interested in team maintenance together with him (pretending he's interested)? Maybe you could even join dma development upstream and decide there about patches and features? That would be ideal. If you both are interested, I am also offering my help with respect to the package maintenance. That said, I am not in the position or interested to decide about the usefulness of patches in cases where you two disagree. Apologies again, and thanks for the patience to you both (and anyone else who might be listening in)! Thanks, as for me there is no need to, though. I just stumbled into this bug as a dma user. :) -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Hi Peter, hi Arno, On 09/23/12 14:15, Arno Töll wrote: Hi, On 12.09.2012 11:08, Peter Pentchev wrote: In the past week I have tried to pick up my Debian work and, yes, I will indeed try to update dma to a (much, much) more recent upstream version very soon. that sounds good. Do you have a rough estimate when you will find time to synchronize the Debian package with upstream? As it looks to me, you two also disagree about the usefulness of some patches. Is there a roadmap what to do with them? Note, from my - ignorant - position it is almost always suboptimal to carry invasive non-mergeable patches in the long term. Given Simon also provides Debian packages, would you be interested in team maintenance together with him (pretending he's interested)? Maybe you could even join dma development upstream and decide there about patches and features? That would be ideal. It's great to hear that Peter is still alive and interested in dma! :) I always welcome collaboration on my projects. Everybody is sincerely invited to discuss and contribute. It has come to my attention that dma might (very might) be a candidate for the future default debian MTA. I hope to get dma into a shape where it can be seriously considered in such a role, no matter what will be decided in the end. Any discussion or code contribution toward this end is highly appreciated. If you both are interested, I am also offering my help with respect to the package maintenance. That said, I am not in the position or interested to decide about the usefulness of patches in cases where you two disagree. Thanks for your offer, I appreciate every help offered! I don't know anything about maintaining Debian packages, so I can't comment on how feasible this would be. cheers simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 03:53:51PM +0200, Arno Töll wrote: Hi, On 11.09.2012 00:45, Simon Schubert wrote: For more than two years I've been trying to talk to Peter to get the Debian package updated, but did not receive any answer so far. Out of desperation I started maintaining my own debian/ directory at some point, in the hope that Peter would have it easier to update the package. This sounds like an unfortunate state, indeed. Peter, could you please elaborate your rationale to maintain your own set of patches to dma specific to Debian, which might considered to effectively be a fork instead of upgrading upstream releases? I am extremely disappointed with the current situation, but I don't know how to fix this issue. Maybe somebody in Debian could take over maintenance of the package? I understand your frustration, but as a peer-driven community, we have limited possibilities to overrule a package maintainer. This can be done, but if so it must be considered as a very last step. Maybe, for now, let's try to work out everyone's arguments and positions. Hi, Sorry about this... again (as I have indeed apologized to Simon about this situation in the past). The truth is, I've been meaning to update dma earlier this year, but a very high-pressure work project took up all of my energy and left me with no free time to speak of from last October till mid-August. In the past week I have tried to pick up my Debian work and, yes, I will indeed try to update dma to a (much, much) more recent upstream version very soon. Apologies again, and thanks for the patience to you both (and anyone else who might be listening in)! G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@freebsd.org pe...@packetscale.com PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 When you are not looking at it, this sentence is in Spanish. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Hi, On 11.09.2012 00:45, Simon Schubert wrote: For more than two years I've been trying to talk to Peter to get the Debian package updated, but did not receive any answer so far. Out of desperation I started maintaining my own debian/ directory at some point, in the hope that Peter would have it easier to update the package. This sounds like an unfortunate state, indeed. Peter, could you please elaborate your rationale to maintain your own set of patches to dma specific to Debian, which might considered to effectively be a fork instead of upgrading upstream releases? I am extremely disappointed with the current situation, but I don't know how to fix this issue. Maybe somebody in Debian could take over maintenance of the package? I understand your frustration, but as a peer-driven community, we have limited possibilities to overrule a package maintainer. This can be done, but if so it must be considered as a very last step. Maybe, for now, let's try to work out everyone's arguments and positions. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
On 09/11/12 15:53, Arno Töll wrote: I am extremely disappointed with the current situation, but I don't know how to fix this issue. Maybe somebody in Debian could take over maintenance of the package? I understand your frustration, but as a peer-driven community, we have limited possibilities to overrule a package maintainer. This can be done, but if so it must be considered as a very last step. Maybe, for now, let's try to work out everyone's arguments and positions. I agree. Could we however put a time limit on this discussion? Is a month reasonable? cheers simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Hi, On 11.09.2012 16:50, Simon Schubert wrote: Maybe, for now, let's try to work out everyone's arguments and positions. I agree. Could we however put a time limit on this discussion? Is a month reasonable? the good thing (or bad thing, depending on your point of view) is, that Debian is currently frozen in preparation of the upcoming Wheezy release. This means, no new packages or package version will enter Testing. That would also hold true for any new version of your software if it were uploaded as of today. That leaves us in a situation of no constrained time pressure. That said, I am not entirely sure what you mean to achieve within a month. I think we do not want to delay any concrete outcome forever. That might not be of interest to anyone involved here. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Hi Simon and Peter, could you please enlighten us a bit regarding the state of dma in Debian. Looks like, Peter actively maintains it (at least for some bugs) but does not seem to be interested to upgrade the Debian package to a new version. This is, at least, how it looks, given you didn't upgrade it in over two years, while Simon keeps releasing new versions in github. On the other hand there seems to be some patch exchange between you two, and the Debian package carries lots of patches which seem to have ended up upstream as well. That said, I am not sure what you two consider upstream: * http://devel.ringlet.net/mail/dma/ * https://github.com/corecode/dma * https://gitorious.org/dma To me it looks like Peter maintains a private set of patches to dma as of 2010, which diverged to Simon's branch. Could you please tell us, what's going on here? As it looks to me, the situation regarding Debian does not look ideal. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Hi Arno, On 09/10/12 23:41, Arno Töll wrote: Hi Simon and Peter, could you please enlighten us a bit regarding the state of dma in Debian. Looks like, Peter actively maintains it (at least for some bugs) but does not seem to be interested to upgrade the Debian package to a new version. This is, at least, how it looks, given you didn't upgrade it in over two years, while Simon keeps releasing new versions in github. Yes, that's an unfortunate situation. On the other hand there seems to be some patch exchange between you two, and the Debian package carries lots of patches which seem to have ended up upstream as well. I have integrated all patches that I thought would benefit dma. The remaining patches added too much complexity in my eyes. That said, I am not sure what you two consider upstream: * https://github.com/corecode/dma This is upstream. * https://gitorious.org/dma This is an old repo, and unfortunately, due to limitations of gitorious, I can also not remove it. To me it looks like Peter maintains a private set of patches to dma as of 2010, which diverged to Simon's branch. Could you please tell us, what's going on here? As it looks to me, the situation regarding Debian does not look ideal. For more than two years I've been trying to talk to Peter to get the Debian package updated, but did not receive any answer so far. Out of desperation I started maintaining my own debian/ directory at some point, in the hope that Peter would have it easier to update the package. I am extremely disappointed with the current situation, but I don't know how to fix this issue. Maybe somebody in Debian could take over maintenance of the package? Thanks for checking in, simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#671364: dma package uses outdated (2 y/o) upstream dma version
Package: dma Version: 0.0.2010.06.17-6 The dma is actively developed and is now at 0.8 version [1]. Is there any reason why debian package uses the outdated version from 2010? I assume this may be because the sources were originally available at http://devel.ringlet.net/mail/dma/, where 2010.06.17 is indeed the newest version available, but the development has ever since moved to https://github.com/corecode/dma and is now at 0.8 version released a month ago. I would be happy to see the dma package updated to newest version available since the up-to-date version has some nice new features, like catch-all support for recipients. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
