Re: NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:06:55PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote: The second reason I chose to cut a lot of NMU changelogs was that you took it upon yourself to load them with vindictive, personal and unprofessional statements. Editing changelogs is `modifying history' - do not do that. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody
(Ean, you are Cc'd just in case you aren't sub'd to -devel, please feel free to denote otherwise to avoid duplicates) Over the course of potato release, there were several NMU's done on the kaffe package to fix some RC bugs. I've listed them here for clarity and reference: 59420: kaffe_1:1.0.5e-0.3(frozen): bad register names on m68k 58434: kaffe: can't build from source 59575: jit3 not supported on sparc build 58434: can't build from source 55835: kaffe_1:1.0.5e-0.1(frozen): build error: make -j fails 55618: kaffe: shell scripts starting kaffe components contain invalid paths 55848: jdk1.1: paths screwed up ? 55961: url in copyright file doesn't work 55618: kaffe: shell scripts starting kaffe components contain invalid paths 49893: New upstream version 52911: Kaffe new version available 34385: kaffe: symlinks for appletviewer missing 36715: kaffe: javaverify alternative 36869: kjavac and kjavadoc missing 36711: kaffe: change dependencies 51416: debian kaffe is missing functionality 51230: kaffe: No exception raised when an external program is not found Some of these are rather important bug fixes. Some are not. According to the changelog in potato, the last upload Ean made was in April of 1999, followed by 5 NMU's by myself, Adam Heath and Zed Pobre. Note Adam works for Ean, and it is Ean's contention that since he asked Adam to make those NMU's on the clock (paid), that he was not ignoring the package, but delegating it to him. Now, here's the real problem. In the woody package, none of the NMU's show up. Not only are they gone, but all of the modifications that were made are gone aswell. So the fixed status of all of these bugs is now incorrect and they all need to be set back to their original severity and checked/fixed again! All of this work gone to waste, when before Jul, the maintainer had nothing to do with his own package, and others had to fix the damn thing. Even more suspicious is a new entry in the woody changelog from Dec of 1999, that never shows up potato (which has a last changelog date of March 2000). So now not only are all the NMU's ignored, but false changelog entries are made, for uploads that were never done! This is rediculous. Ean knows about these NMU's. He asked Adam to peform his, and I emailed him about the ones I did, and he responded. Why must our packages take a step back!? -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody
Well Ben, there are two reasons that I ignored the NMUs. The first reason is that Kaffe revisions have been so long in coming that the 1.0.6 source base bears little to no resembelence to the 1.0.5 source. Maintaining the patches that were done against 1.0.5 would be difficult at best and I was more concerned with getting 1.0.6 out so that people could use it. This issue is about to be compounded by the fact that Transvirtual is merging all of their proprietary code into the open source base. This means that a spectrum of features (framebuffer AWT, improved JIT, much better native thread support, etc.) will be moving into the GPL source base. So, in short 1.0.6 and the release after will both represent what are effectively new pieces of software and tracking bugs let alone source patches across those releases will be a waste of everyone's time. The second reason I chose to cut a lot of NMU changelogs was that you took it upon yourself to load them with vindictive, personal and unprofessional statements. Why you need to say things like I wish the maintainer of this software would pay attention to his packages in a changelog is completely beyond me. I insured that a 1.0.5 release was available days after it was released, as I did with 1.0.6, yet you continue to try and paint a picture of negligence. Frankly, it seems clear to me that its personal and I don't no why. Nor do I care. I spent all last week working in Transvirtual's offices, know Tim Wilkinson personally and have an active business relationship with TVT. I use Kaffe on a daily basis, package it for my own use and currently use it on a number of handheld devices including the MIPS platform (for more info see: http://www.pocketlinux.com). In short, I don't want to belittle your comments but I would ask you to conduct yourself a little more professionally. At least try to bring issues to me (or at least debian-java) before you waste devel's time with issues that have little or no basis. Regards, E.Schuessler On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:14:28AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: (Ean, you are Cc'd just in case you aren't sub'd to -devel, please feel free to denote otherwise to avoid duplicates) Over the course of potato release, there were several NMU's done on the kaffe package to fix some RC bugs. I've listed them here for clarity and reference: 59420: kaffe_1:1.0.5e-0.3(frozen): bad register names on m68k 58434: kaffe: can't build from source 59575: jit3 not supported on sparc build 58434: can't build from source 55835: kaffe_1:1.0.5e-0.1(frozen): build error: make -j fails 55618: kaffe: shell scripts starting kaffe components contain invalid paths 55848: jdk1.1: paths screwed up ? 55961: url in copyright file doesn't work 55618: kaffe: shell scripts starting kaffe components contain invalid paths 49893: New upstream version 52911: Kaffe new version available 34385: kaffe: symlinks for appletviewer missing 36715: kaffe: javaverify alternative 36869: kjavac and kjavadoc missing 36711: kaffe: change dependencies 51416: debian kaffe is missing functionality 51230: kaffe: No exception raised when an external program is not found Some of these are rather important bug fixes. Some are not. According to the changelog in potato, the last upload Ean made was in April of 1999, followed by 5 NMU's by myself, Adam Heath and Zed Pobre. Note Adam works for Ean, and it is Ean's contention that since he asked Adam to make those NMU's on the clock (paid), that he was not ignoring the package, but delegating it to him. Now, here's the real problem. In the woody package, none of the NMU's show up. Not only are they gone, but all of the modifications that were made are gone aswell. So the fixed status of all of these bugs is now incorrect and they all need to be set back to their original severity and checked/fixed again! All of this work gone to waste, when before Jul, the maintainer had nothing to do with his own package, and others had to fix the damn thing. Even more suspicious is a new entry in the woody changelog from Dec of 1999, that never shows up potato (which has a last changelog date of March 2000). So now not only are all the NMU's ignored, but false changelog entries are made, for uploads that were never done! This is rediculous. Ean knows about these NMU's. He asked Adam to peform his, and I emailed him about the ones I did, and he responded. Why must our packages take a step back!? -- ___ Ean SchuesslerDirector of Strategic Weapons Systems Brainfood, Inc. A Devices that Kill People company *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Re: NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:06:55PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote: Well Ben, there are two reasons that I ignored the NMUs. The first reason is that Kaffe revisions have been so long in coming that the 1.0.6 source base bears little to no resembelence to the 1.0.5 source. Maintaining the patches that were done against 1.0.5 would be difficult at best and I was more concerned with getting 1.0.6 out so that people could use it. So superficial version numbers are more important than stability? I see. Problem is that the patches I applied to this had a lot to do with the debian files (build failures because of faulty hard coded options). Which means, you should have incorporated them. This issue is about to be compounded by the fact that Transvirtual is merging all of their proprietary code into the open source base. This means that a spectrum of features (framebuffer AWT, improved JIT, much better native thread support, etc.) will be moving into the GPL source base. So, in short 1.0.6 and the release after will both represent what are effectively new pieces of software and tracking bugs let alone source patches across those releases will be a waste of everyone's time. Hey, sounds _a lot_ like 10% of the rest of Debian packages! WOW. However, that is no excuse to ignore a) valid patches and b) changelogs which denote the history of the package as it pertains to Debian. Even if you don't like it, it is still there, and should remain. Removing it in favor of your personal image is not an excuse. The second reason I chose to cut a lot of NMU changelogs was that you took it upon yourself to load them with vindictive, personal and unprofessional statements. Why you need to say things like I wish the maintainer of this software would pay attention to his packages in a changelog is completely beyond me. Vidictive? Hell, I could have said a lot worse. I don't think making a request for some attention to your package was too much to ask. I insured that a 1.0.5 release was available days after it was released, as I did with 1.0.6, yet you continue to try and paint a picture of negligence. Frankly, it seems clear to me that its personal and I don't no why. Nor do I care. No, it's clear that removing patches and changelogs that I and others took the time to NMU, was personal. I spent all last week working in Transvirtual's offices, know Tim Wilkinson personally and have an active business relationship with TVT. I use Kaffe on a daily basis, package it for my own use and currently use it on a number of handheld devices including the MIPS platform (for more info see: http://www.pocketlinux.com). Irrelevant. In short, I don't want to belittle your comments but I would ask you to conduct yourself a little more professionally. At least try to bring issues to me (or at least debian-java) before you waste devel's time with issues that have little or no basis. Professionalism is what I did. I fixed the package, and made comments for the maintainer. A simple request to do this yourself is not vindictive nor unprofessional. Me having to do your job...now that makes you unprofessional. Irregardless of how cozy you are with upstream companies, you still need to fix bugs, not just killoff valid patches and work. Again, you chose the quick and short route. Go back to when you knew what the hell was going on with your package, upgrade to a new uptream (which you claim is so different, and took so much effort) instead of doing it the right way, by acknowledging the NMU's, forward-porting the patches and maintaining stability. You did none of those. I bet you did not even try to check the patches. It's not as if they were hard to find. In the potato package they are even seperated in debian/patches/, so it would have been a piece of cake to get them. You claim you wanted to make it available so much, well guess what. The bugs you ignored are now present again, and you just kept your nifty new upstream version from more people because it FAILS to build and IS broken. I bet you didn't even try to get the source patches incorporated upstream. Roman Hodek took quite a bit of debug and test time to track down the m68k errors, and now that you blew off that, it probably wont build on there anymore. Good job Ean. You've done an excellent job of maintaining a quality package. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
Re: NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody
I refuse to continue this discussion on devel. Move it to -java where it belongs. On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:28:03PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: Good job Ean. You've done an excellent job of maintaining a quality package. -- ___ Ean SchuesslerDirector of New Products and Technologies Brainfood, Inc. The Unstoppable Fist of Digital Action *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Re: NMU's completely removed from kaffe in woody
Woah. Calm down, everyone! On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 04:28:03PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:06:55PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote: Well Ben, there are two reasons that I ignored the NMUs. The first reason is that Kaffe revisions have been so long in coming that the 1.0.6 source base bears little to no resembelence to the 1.0.5 source. Maintaining the patches that were done against 1.0.5 would be difficult at best and I was more concerned with getting 1.0.6 out so that people could use it. So superficial version numbers are more important than stability? I see. Rhetoric. In isolation, a new upstream version sounds like a good idea for woody; that's why we have unstable. Problem is that the patches I applied to this had a lot to do with the debian files (build failures because of faulty hard coded options). Which means, you should have incorporated them. And this is a reasonable point. Ean, did you review the patches to the build scripts? So, in short 1.0.6 and the release after will both represent what are effectively new pieces of software and tracking bugs let alone source patches across those releases will be a waste of everyone's time. Hey, sounds _a lot_ like 10% of the rest of Debian packages! WOW. However, that is no excuse to ignore a) valid patches and b) changelogs which denote the history of the package as it pertains to Debian. Even if you don't like it, it is still there, and should remain. Removing it in favor of your personal image is not an excuse. I have to agree with Ben. The changelog should represent history. If a user with the current potato version upgrades, and finds the version he came from not mentioned in the changelog, he's gonna be pretty confused. The second reason I chose to cut a lot of NMU changelogs was that you took it upon yourself to load them with vindictive, personal and unprofessional statements. Why you need to say things like I wish the maintainer of this software would pay attention to his packages in a changelog is completely beyond me. Vidictive? Hell, I could have said a lot worse. I don't think making a request for some attention to your package was too much to ask. But it was the wrong place to make that request, and it does reflect badly on the project to have that kind of thing put in a place which, we agree, is supposed to be kept as history. I insured that a 1.0.5 release was available days after it was released, as I did with 1.0.6, yet you continue to try and paint a picture of negligence. Frankly, it seems clear to me that its personal and I don't no why. Nor do I care. No, it's clear that removing patches and changelogs that I and others took the time to NMU, was personal. It is not clear to me that either action was personal. Even if it was, perhaps we'll get a better distribution by working first on the assumption that it wasn't personal? I spent all last week working in Transvirtual's offices, know Tim Wilkinson personally and have an active business relationship with TVT. I use Kaffe on a daily basis, package it for my own use and currently use it on a number of handheld devices including the MIPS platform (for more info see: http://www.pocketlinux.com). Irrelevant. No, it's not totally irrelevant. It may not excuse the fact that Ean altered the changelog and possibly ignored some useful patches, but it /does/ suggest that Ean may have the necessary experience, skills, and connections to make a good kaffe package. In short, I don't want to belittle your comments but I would ask you to conduct yourself a little more professionally. At least try to bring issues to me (or at least debian-java) before you waste devel's time with issues that have little or no basis. Professionalism is what I did. I fixed the package, and made comments for the maintainer. A simple request to do this yourself is not vindictive nor unprofessional. Me having to do your job...now that makes you unprofessional. Irregardless of how cozy you are with upstream companies, you still need to fix bugs, not just killoff valid patches and work. On the other hand, being rude in the changelog is unprofessional, IMO. OK. None of the above is my business, to be honest, but it's out on an open list, so there you go. Jules -- Jules Bean |Any sufficiently advanced [EMAIL PROTECTED]| technology is indistinguishable [EMAIL PROTECTED] | from a perl script
