Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 09:46:57AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> My two cents...  If the bug stayed with wnpp (as opposed to being
> reassigned to ftp.debian.org)

Keep in mind, these are not the only alternatives.  I've modified my
proposal in response to a good point that Marcelo Magallon made.

It is possible for bugs to be assigned to more than one package:

reassign 123456 wnpp,ftp.debian.org

This makes the bug show up in the indices for both packages.  It seems
like a good application of this seldom-used feature of the BTS.

Again, under normal circumstances (package maintainer created a good
package and included the Closes:  in the package changelog),
this requires no special action from the FTP admins whatever.  I would
expect the package maintainer to do the above reassignment when
uploading the package.

On top of everything else, the above could be automated in a tool like
"debrelease".

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion.
Debian GNU/Linux   | Set fire to a church of your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpnK6Q063LcB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 06:38:46PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> 
>  
> > Well, the bug could be reassigned to "wnpp,ftp.debian.org".  That should
> > work with the current BTS without changing anything.
> 
> I think it should be kept to wnpp.
> 
> At least, so that we have a distinction between 
> ITP that has been withdrawn, and an ITP that is 
> going to be fulfilled.

That seems completely orthogonal to the proposal.

* If an ITP is being withdrawn and no package has been uploaded yet,
  then the bug hasn't already been reassigned to "wnpp,ftp.debian.org"
  and it can be retitled "RFP:" as usual
* If an ITP is being withdrawn and a package has already been uploaded,
  but is not installable because overrides/database updates are still
  pending, the package should be deleted from incoming (would happen
  under existing policy anyway), the bug retitled (would happen under
  existing policy), and reassigned back to just "wnpp" (new step).
* If an ITP is being withdrawn and the package is already in the
  archive, the ITP bug should already have been closed.  The usual
  RFA/ITO rules apply here.

I think it is probably rare that a person will withdraw his ITP after
actually uploading a package.

> It's about new packages, after all.  And not everything related to
> ftp.debian.org needs to be at ftp.debian.org.

Why is that?  It's generally accepted practice that bugs against my
packages, for instance, should be assigned to my packages, not someone
else's.

As I said before, this proposal makes it easy to tell when the ball is
in the FTP admins' court, without requiring any special action from them
under normal circumstances (that is, they vet the package and accept it
into the archive).  When a package has to be rejected, I can think of no
better place for the information than the ITP bug report.

I suppose it would also be necessary for a rejected package to be
reassigned back to just "wnpp", but this sort of thing seems pretty
scriptable (and even if not, it's a one-liner in shell if you have
devscripts installed[1]).

[1] "bts reassign 123456 wnpp"

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|If you wish to strive for peace of
Debian GNU/Linux   |soul, then believe; if you wish to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |be a devotee of truth, then
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


pgpMEarxRZUrc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Junichi Uekawa]

Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit

> My two cents...  If the bug stayed with wnpp (as opposed to being
> reassigned to ftp.debian.org) I'd prefer a new title (e.g. ITP-uploaded).
> Archive maintainer who reject an upload could then retitle it to
> ITP-rejected and document why.  This would make it easy to see on the wnpp
> page (provided these new catogories were added to the grouping).

I don't know if this administriva is really trivial or not, but 
the reality is "ITP:" is overcrowded, and getting rather unmanageable.


regards,
junichi

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Peter S Galbraith]

Sam Powers wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> > 
> > > closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of
> > > the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the WNPP
> > > group, and in that of the FTP maintainers.
> > 
> > it might be better to retitle it to make it look 
> > "ITP-uploaded: package - description"
> 
> This might end up being more of a question, but what about some kind of
> custom tag or something, perhaps tagging the ITP uploaded and then being
> tagged installed once installed into the archive.. all this could be done
> without continued human intervention, and provides both a place to store
> information about rejects, and shows at what stage the package is at during
> its lifespan. 

New tags are an idea, but not a very visible one.

My two cents...  If the bug stayed with wnpp (as opposed to being
reassigned to ftp.debian.org) I'd prefer a new title (e.g. ITP-uploaded).
Archive maintainer who reject an upload could then retitle it to
ITP-rejected and document why.  This would make it easy to see on the wnpp
page (provided these new catogories were added to the grouping).

Peter

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Sam Powers]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit
> 
> > closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of
> > the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the WNPP
> > group, and in that of the FTP maintainers.
> 
> it might be better to retitle it to make it look 
> "ITP-uploaded: package - description"

This might end up being more of a question, but what about some kind of
custom tag or something, perhaps tagging the ITP uploaded and then being
tagged installed once installed into the archive.. all this could be done
without continued human intervention, and provides both a place to store
information about rejects, and shows at what stage the package is at during
its lifespan. 

please exceuse any incorrect assumptions i may have made, i'm still kind of
new to debian.

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Junichi Uekawa]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit

 
> Well, the bug could be reassigned to "wnpp,ftp.debian.org".  That should
> work with the current BTS without changing anything.

I think it should be kept to wnpp.

At least, so that we have a distinction between 
ITP that has been withdrawn, and an ITP that is 
going to be fulfilled.

It's about new packages, after all.
And not everything related to ftp.debian.org
needs to be at ftp.debian.org.


thanks,
junichi


-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:03:29PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> "Well, clearly after making the package from scratch, the next step is to
> get it into the archive, and responsibility for that is with ftpmaster,
> so let's reassign the bug to ftp.debian.org"

...typically requires human intervention.

> "Well, clearly after making a version of the package that fixes the bug, the
> next step is to get it into the archive, and responsibility for that is with
> ftpmaster, so let's reassign the bug to ftp.debian.org"

...typically does not.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  To stay young requires unceasing
Debian GNU/Linux   |  cultivation of the ability to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  unlearn old falsehoods.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Robert Heinlein


pgpkkT05HduYe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:39:38PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 25-Sep-01, 22:59 (CDT), Anthony Towns  wrote: 
> > and filing, what, a dozen new bugs against ftp.debian.org every week is
> > something other than harassment [0]?
> How is it harrasment? 

How is it not?

"Well, clearly after making the package from scratch, the next step is to
get it into the archive, and responsibility for that is with ftpmaster,
so let's reassign the bug to ftp.debian.org"

"Well, clearly after making a version of the package that fixes the bug, the
next step is to get it into the archive, and responsibility for that is with
ftpmaster, so let's reassign the bug to ftp.debian.org"

So why don't we just reassign every fixed bug to ftp.debian.org when
a package the maintainer thinks fixes the bug is uploaded? Hey, it's
just a todo list, and it'll be a nice public record of bugs that've had
fixes uploaded! Let's do it!!

> It's a todo list.

incoming/REPORT is a todo list, and one that's automatically managed
and in a format that's useful for ftpmaster and doesn't get in the way
of doing other things.

When did it become fashionable to dump contentious issues that don't
have the support of the people who'd be implementing them onto -devel
so we could get a nice public guilt trip about it? When did it become
fashionable for everyone to jump in and say "yes, yes, do it, what sort
of punk are you that you're not doing it, it's a perfectly reasonable
idea, how can you possibly be irritated by it, geez, can't we get someone
competent to do this" and unfashionable for anyone to jump in and defend
people actually doing stuff? When, for that matter, did it become popular
to try to force through bureacratic and political changes to the way
things are done instead of trying to think of technical changes that
might actually do some good for users, as well as your own ego?

Cheers,
aj, fed up with all this nonsense

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``Freedom itself was attacked this morning by faceless cowards.
 And freedom will be defended.''   Condolences to all involved.


pgpzEvKULSz6x.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 08:42:18PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  I can understand your argument for reassigning the bugs and in
>  principle I agree with it.  My only objection is that people would have
>  to check http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org instaed of
>  http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp or http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp to find
>  out about uploaded packages.  Making www.d.o/devel/wnpp fetch the
>  relevent ftp.d.o bugs would be trivial.

Well, the bug could be reassigned to "wnpp,ftp.debian.org".  That should
work with the current BTS without changing anything.

In general it's a bad idea to assign a bug to more than one package, but
this might be one of those cases where it makes sense.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   If ignorance is bliss,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   is omniscience hell?
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpclcRXhed44.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 > As with account creation for New Maintainers, inclusion of an
 > uploaded package with an ITP bug against it is the "final stage" in
 > the realization of the new package.  We don't have fully fledged new
 > developers until their accounts are created; we don't have fully
 > fledged new packages until dinstall/katie can pull them into the
 > archive.
 >
 > Also, I don't think ftp.debian.org will be overloaded with open bugs;
 > getting new packages that have been ITP'ed into the archive is just
 > as important a function as removing packages that have been orphaned,
 > and we file bugs for that.

 I can understand your argument for reassigning the bugs and in
 principle I agree with it.  My only objection is that people would have
 to check http://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org instaed of
 http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp or http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp to find
 out about uploaded packages.  Making www.d.o/devel/wnpp fetch the
 relevent ftp.d.o bugs would be trivial.

 > Furthermore, as I said, this gives a place for people to post reasons
 > why a package may not be acceptable for inclusion into the archive.

 That's something that I'd like to see.  There's a WNPP page listing
 software that can't be packaged, but some stuff there lacks a reason.
 Links to archived debian-legal or -devel mails would be enough, but,
 should the need exist, archived bugs closed by ftp-master would be a
 nice thing to have, too.

-- 
Marcelo | Give anyone a lever long enough and they can change
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | the world.  It's unreliable levers that are the problem.
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Steve Greenland]

On 25-Sep-01, 22:59 (CDT), Anthony Towns  wrote: 

> and filing, what, a dozen new bugs against ftp.debian.org every week is
> something other than harassment [0]?

How is it harrasment? It's a todo list. And won't the bug be closed
automatically when the package is installed? So it's hardly any extra
effort for the ftp maintainers, and it provides a public and consistent
place to track the status of packages with problems.

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Peter S Galbraith]

Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Rather than making it to be reassigned to something else,
> > it might be better to retitle it to make it look 
> > 
> > "ITP-uploaded: package - description"
> > 
> > and still assigned to wnpp.
> 
> > But it's one more step to the procedure, and I guess it will add to
> > the confusion / manual mistakes.
> 
> That could be a risk.  Does it outweigh the benefits?

It doesn't need to be done manually.  katie sends me an email
telling me I uploaded a NEW package which requires human
intervention.  It could also email the bug if it sees the
changelog closes in ITP bug (would we need to format them in a
special way perhaps?).

I don't see a problem with reassigning the bug to ftp.debian.org,
and I think it's a _good_ idea.

Peter

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:54:29PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Rather than making it to be reassigned to something else,
> it might be better to retitle it to make it look 
> 
> "ITP-uploaded: package - description"
> 
> or
> 
> "Uploaded: package - description"
> 
> and still assigned to wnpp.
> 
> It will make clearer which packages are still in preparation
> and which are not (which is not obvious in the current state),
> and not make ftp.debian.org overloaded with bugs.

I don't really see how retitling is any better than reassigning.

As with account creation for New Maintainers, inclusion of an uploaded
package with an ITP bug against it is the "final stage" in the
realization of the new package.  We don't have fully fledged new
developers until their accounts are created; we don't have fully fledged
new packages until dinstall/katie can pull them into the archive.

Also, I don't think ftp.debian.org will be overloaded with open bugs;
getting new packages that have been ITP'ed into the archive is just as
important a function as removing packages that have been orphaned, and
we file bugs for that.

Furthermore, as I said, this gives a place for people to post reasons
why a package may not be acceptable for inclusion into the archive.

Finally, should the ftp.debian.org buglist start to back up, it might
serve as a useful barometer telling us that we need to add members to
the team.  (As they are delegates of the Project Leader, though, it's up
to the DPL to make this call, as I understand it.)

> But it's one more step to the procedure, and I guess it will add to
> the confusion / manual mistakes.

That could be a risk.  Does it outweigh the benefits?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|The first thing the communists do
Debian GNU/Linux   |when they take over a country is to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |outlaw cockfighting.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Oklahoma State Senator John Monks


pgpG81xPuCuYp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: MUAs and Locking Was: Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:33:04AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> * Anthony Towns  [010925 22:59]:
> > Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa,
> > especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from
> 
> It's absouletly horrid code to look at and has a locking scheme I wish
> not to overhaul to get into the fnctl, then dotlock policy.
> 
> Right now it seems to dotlock only, never fnctl.
> 
> It might not be a bad idea for MUA maintainers to check on how their
> packages handle the munging of mailboxes.  This can be a pretty
> 'critical' thing because users using NFS mounted mailspools can quickly
> lose whole spools with bad locking practices.

This is well and good, but offtopic.  This thread isn't (supposed to be)
about "xmailtool", it's about ITP bug reports being in a state that more
accurately represents what's going on with the corresponding packages.

I posted no ITP for xmailtool, for two reasons:

1) It wasn't really "new", since madison knew about it, and it exists
   in the current release of Debian; and
2) I wasn't sure I wanted to maintain it.

If xmailtool implements brain-dead mail locking, I'm pretty sure I don't
want to dirty my hands with it.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| If you have the slightest bit of
Debian GNU/Linux   | intellectual integrity you cannot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | support the government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- anonymous


pgpuEZLSVeKMT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

>> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

 > The bug was quickly closed by one of the FTP admins:

 Be happy, you got a reply...


-- 
Marcelo | - "There have been...accidents."  - "What kind of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | accidents?"  - "The kind of accidents you prefer to
| call...accidents."
| -- (Terry Pratchett, Maskerade)

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Junichi Uekawa]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit

> When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to
> suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org.  The package changelog
> can and should still use "Closes: #", so that the bug is
> closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of
> the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the WNPP
> group, and in that of the FTP maintainers.

Rather than making it to be reassigned to something else,
it might be better to retitle it to make it look 

"ITP-uploaded: package - description"

or

"Uploaded: package - description"

and still assigned to wnpp.


It will make clearer which packages are still in preparation
and which are not (which is not obvious in the current state),
and not make ftp.debian.org overloaded with bugs.



But it's one more step to the procedure, and 
I guess it will add to the confusion / manual mistakes.

thanks,
junichi

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Scott Dier]

* Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010925 22:43]:
> > Thats not really fair now is it!  Branden is trying to make the
> > procedure better if his suggestions are wrong how about making
> > constructive criticism.
> Tell that to James Troup.

Perhaps next time let him make the comment instead.

-- 
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ringworld.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."
- Justice Thurgood Marshall (1989)

MUAs and Locking Was: Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Scott Dier]

* Anthony Towns  [010925 22:59]:
> Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa,
> especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from

It's absouletly horrid code to look at and has a locking scheme I wish
not to overhaul to get into the fnctl, then dotlock policy.

Right now it seems to dotlock only, never fnctl.

It might not be a bad idea for MUA maintainers to check on how their
packages handle the munging of mailboxes.  This can be a pretty
'critical' thing because users using NFS mounted mailspools can quickly
lose whole spools with bad locking practices.

Thanks,
-- 
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.ringworld.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."
- Justice Thurgood Marshall (1989)

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:59:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:35:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > You are not going to harass us into special casing you.
> > I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread.
> 
> Uh, and you figure making people mail the BTS specially for each new
> package uploaded

What proposal were you reading?  It sure doesn't sound like the one I
wrote:

"When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to
suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org."

If you have a problem with people filing bugs with the BTS to declare
their intent to package each new package they intend to upload, I
suggest you talk to the WNPP team ASAP.

> (instead of adding a Closes line to the changelog),

"The package changelog can and should still use "Closes: #", so that the bug is closed automatically"

> and filing, what, a dozen new bugs against ftp.debian.org every week is
> something other than harassment [0]?

I'm sorry, I don't understand where you're getting the "new" bugs from.
ITP bugs already exist in the BTS.

> Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa,
> especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from
> the distro? That's usually considered somewhat irresponsible.

Did you read the changelog of the uploaded package?  It appears in the
bug logs of #113360.

> [0] A few weeks ago, the term would've been "bug terrorism", but maybe not
> now.

Thankfully(?), you've kept the meme alive with this message.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Communism is just one step on the
Debian GNU/Linux   | long road from capitalism to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | capitalism.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Russian saying


pgpO0sQGOGmtk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:35:32PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You are not going to harass us into special casing you.
> I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread.

Uh, and you figure making people mail the BTS specially for each new
package uploaded (instead of adding a Closes line to the changelog),
and filing, what, a dozen new bugs against ftp.debian.org every week is
something other than harassment [0]?

It's a NEW package (ie, one not currently in unstable or experimental),
and'll be treated the same way NEW ones are across the board. It's not
really that complicated.

Why, btw, are you uploading a NEW package with the maintainer set to -qa,
especially when -qa has already asked for the package to be removed from
the distro? That's usually considered somewhat irresponsible.

Cheers,
aj

[0] A few weeks ago, the term would've been "bug terrorism", but maybe not
now.

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.


 ``Freedom itself was attacked this morning by faceless cowards.
 And freedom will be defended.''   Condolences to all involved.

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:54:15PM +1000, Jason Thomas wrote:
> > Branden, stop making hysterical comments.
> 
> Thats not really fair now is it!  Branden is trying to make the
> procedure better if his suggestions are wrong how about making
> constructive criticism.

Tell that to James Troup.

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 04:22:19AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > >   tags 113360 wontfix
> > >   severity 113360 wishlist
> > >   thanks
> 
> Which means since you won't leave the bug closed, I'll mark it wontfix
> instead.  That doesn't alter my statement in the close mail and
> repeated here on -devel.  Since you don't seem to (want to)
> understand, I'll try one more time: xmailtool will be processed as
> normal.

So in other words, the request in the subject line of the bug report
"please add xmailtool to overrides/katie database? will actually be done
at some point?

How does that mesh with the "wontfix" tag, or closing the report?  If
you do actually intend to resolve the report using the method suggested
by the submitter, that sounds like an ordinary bug fix to me.  The kind
of report you close when the matter is resolved.

> You are not going to harass us into special casing you.

I wouldn't dream of it, hence the proposal in this thread.

Anyway, as it stands, people with the current version of the package
installed will be dealing with Bug #112645, which makes it difficult to
upgrade a box to testing.

The "urgency" field of a package upload is meaningless if a package
can't be processed because of changes that need to happen to the katie
database first.  Is that a deliberate or accidental policy?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion.
Debian GNU/Linux   | Set fire to a church of your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpnajHYC4Cwd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[James Troup]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> >   tags 113360 wontfix
> >   severity 113360 wishlist
> >   thanks

Which means since you won't leave the bug closed, I'll mark it wontfix
instead.  That doesn't alter my statement in the close mail and
repeated here on -devel.  Since you don't seem to (want to)
understand, I'll try one more time: xmailtool will be processed as
normal. You are not going to harass us into special casing you.

> >   Bored now.

[So, _very_ bored]

-- 
James

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 02:57:50AM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Apparently the package is never to be accepted into Debian,
> 
> Err, no, I never said that.

Exhibit 1:


  From: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Date: 25 Sep 2001 19:18:42 +0100
  In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Lines: 8
  User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
  MIME-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  Sender: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  tags 113360 wontfix
  severity 113360 wishlist
  thanks

  Bored now.

Exhibit 2:


  wontfix

  This bug won't be fixed. Possibly because this is a choice between two
  arbitrary ways of doing things and the maintainer and submitter prefer
  different ways of doing things, possibly because changing the behaviour
  will cause other, worse, problems for others, or possibly for other
  reasons.

Did you tag the bug "wontfix" in error?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  "I came, I saw, she conquered."
Debian GNU/Linux   |  The original Latin seems to have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  been garbled.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Robert Heinlein


pgpbWWZqJwIK7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Jason Thomas]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 07:05:13PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:15:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to
> > suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org.
> 
> Branden, stop making hysterical comments.

Thats not really fair now is it!  Branden is trying to make the
procedure better if his suggestions are wrong how about making
constructive criticism.


pgpKzR6OKXqWk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:15:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to
> suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org.

Branden, stop making hysterical comments.

Re: PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[James Troup]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Apparently the package is never to be accepted into Debian,

Err, no, I never said that.  I said it would be processed normally and
that you would not harass us into special casing you.

-- 
James

PROPOSED: slight change to wnpp procedures

[Branden Robinson]

See  for reference.

When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to
suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org.  The package changelog
can and should still use "Closes: #", so that the bug is
closed automatically, but this way it is clear that the matter is out of
the (prospective) package maintainer's hands, or those of the WNPP
group, and in that of the FTP maintainers.

If a package is rejected by the FTP admins, they should email the bug
number and explain why.  If by its very nature a package can't be
accepted into the project, perhaps the bug should retitled "UTP" [unable
to package] and reassigned to wnpp.

Advantages:

1) This better reflects the actual process by which packages get into
Debian, and who is responsible for a package at a given stage of its
life-cycle.

2) This gives the FTP admins a place to put information relevant to the
process of accepting (or not) a new package into the archive.  For
instance, here's part of the output of ls -hlrt on auric's incoming
directory:

-rw-r--r--1 philhDebian   1.2k Jul  3 02:31 
memoization_1.0-4_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 viralDebian   1007 Jul  3 13:49 
kernel-patch-folk_1.10-1_hppa.changes
-rw-rw-r--1 troupDebian   1.0k Jul  6 13:25 
mnews_1.22PL5-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 troupDebian   1000 Aug 29 16:50 
sword-comm-mhcc_1.1-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 troupDebian   1019 Aug 29 17:01 
sword-dict-naves_1.1-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 was  Debian988 Sep  1 22:21 
csmash-demosong_1.0_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 chanop   Debian   1.2k Sep 15 02:59 
libjpeg-mmx_0.1.3-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 chanop   Debian   1.3k Sep 15 03:03 
libmpeg3_1.4-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 chanop   Debian   1.1k Sep 15 07:43 
bcast_2000c-1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 branden  Debian   1.5k Sep 18 09:43 
xmailtool_3.1.2b-1.4_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 gibreel  Debian   1.9k Sep 19 12:43 
j2se1.3-powerpc_1.3.0-1_powerpc.changes
-rw-r--r--1 gibreel  Debian   2.1k Sep 20 13:28 
j2se1.3-i386_1.3.1-1.1_i386.changes
-rw-r--r--1 marillat Debian   1.3k Sep 21 10:46 rte_0.3.1-1_i386.changes

Some of those packages have been there quite a while.  Some of them,
like the FOLK collection of kernel packages, and Broadcast 2000, are
quite interesting, but I'm not sure where to look for information about
why they haven't been accepted yet (other new packages have been in the
meantime).  After xmailtool sat in the incoming queue for several days,
I filed a bug against ftp.debian.org .

"Hi,

xmailtool is one of those de facto unmaintained packages that hasn't
seen an upload since potato released.

I uploaded an NMU on September 18th that fixes a serious bug in the
package (it has a file overlap with xlibs, which might actually be a
grave bug, not just serious).

Please add xmailtool to the katie database.  madison knows about the
version in stable, if that's any help."

The bug was quickly closed by one of the FTP admins:

"xmailtool is a NEW package.  It will be processed as normal. You are
not going to harass us into special casing you by filing hysterical
bug reports."

So I replied:

"Please quote to me the part of the report that was hysterical, so I can
avoid using such language in the future."

The FTP admins' only further reply was to the BTS control bot:

"tags 113360 wontfix
severity 113360 wishlist
thanks

Bored now."

Clearly not a very productive exchange.  Apparently the package is never
to be accepted into Debian, and the FTP admins have not explained why.

Disadvantages:

I can't think of any.

Comments?  WNPP guys, what do you think?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I just wanted to see what it looked
Debian GNU/Linux   |like in a spotlight.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- Jim Morrison
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpbeezA7Bfuq.pgp
Description: PGP signature