Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Rico -mc- Gloeckner]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:36:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> While I have my gripes with the DAM process, I don't blame the holder(s)
> of that position for some developers in the past having proven
> untrustworthy.  The DAM should not be embarrassed by having let in
> someone who also fooled everyone else.  The DAMs' job is to manage
> accounts, not gaze into people's souls.

He, and everyone else, should however raise his (their) voice if they
see an applicant not fitting into Debian or they think that someone his
untrustworthy.

*If* there is doubt, those doubts should be communicated to atleast the
AM, so he can take action; be it that they ask the community how they
feel, be it that they communicate the reasons further to the applicant,
be it another action which i currently do not think of.

Its no solution if the DAM doesnt communicate at all or only when he
gets asked. IMHO atleast the communication between DAM and AMs should be
working good, and from atleast one voice i heard (i dont remember if it
was in the threads or on IRC) this is not the case.


I do not feel its even required to always post exact reasons, some
things shouldnt be made too public; instead i feel that there should
be communicated... well, lets call it heartbeats: "Hey, i did not forget
you". Again, this mustnt be necessarily communicated directly to the
applicant, but atleast to the AM, who can further communicate it (if
necessary, in complete different detail-levels) to the applicant.

-- 
| Rico -mc- Gloeckner  |  mv ~/.signature `finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|  Encrypted Mails preferred:   1024D/61F05B8C |
|  3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62   E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C |

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:19:20PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
>> I would much prefer the current system where the elected
>> DPL has the absolute power over the delegates.
> (In fact, even in theory your statement is incorrect, as a review of the
> Constitution will reveal.)

Well, English is not my first language so I may be misreading
something but it does seem to me that the DPL has the sole power of
both appointing delegates for ongoing tasks and revoking those
delegations at will. Only specific decision delegations may not be
revoked by the DPL. Granted, it is not entirely absolute but in my
opinion it is absolute enough.

-- 
*  Sacherin toinen laki: Elämä ilman suklaakakkua ei ole elämää.  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:03:08PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:22:35PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Where did this "full speed" expectation come from?  Yes, it slows down the
> > process a bit, but in general this is not a big problem.
> 
> It comes from the people who believe that having to go through a sponsor is
> not a problem, and that people can and should adopt half a dozen packages
> without needing to be a DD - an assertion that is rarely stated, but is the
> most obvious (to me) explanation for some of the statements made in this
> thread. Not necessarily made, however, by you.

It is not a problem; it is a minor inconvenience, and in many cases it is an
invaluable aid in learning the packaging system.

> > > Anyone claiming it's not inconvenient should spend half a year or so doing
> > > it, then try to make the claim with a straight face.
> > 
> > I did, and for longer than you.
> 
> Let me clarify, then: are you claiming that it is not inconvenient, and
> that it is reasonable to expect someone to do everything a DD does,
> regularly, but through the sponsorship program?

No.  It is inconvenient, but it is also reasonable.

> If so... an interesting datapoint. If not, what *are* you saying, and/or
> why is it relevant how long you waited (since the statement I made, above,
> was intended to directly tie 'inconvenience' to the duration of that
> inconvenience).

It is relevant because I know of what I speak.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:19:20PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> I would much prefer the current system where the elected
> DPL has the absolute power over the delegates.

Oh, is *that* what the current system is?  I thought it was in actual
fact quite different.  ;-)

(In fact, even in theory your statement is incorrect, as a review of the
Constitution will reveal.)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|The basic test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux   |perhaps less in what we are free to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |do than in what we are free not to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |do.  -- Eric Hoffer


pgpNlqTHSVXbH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:14:46AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> er, we have a leader, and he has a delegate, the DAM.  The DPL and the
> DAM are those who can change who the DAM is, through normal
> functions.

Well, that's the theory, anyway...

-- 
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/ |


pgp2m51EDLNnD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 03:21:59PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> But he /does/ do the job - people who are trusted to be Debian
> developers end up in that state and as yet, nobody who plainly shouldn't
> have been in Debian seems to have got in, which is a good sign.

Well, what about the people we've kicked out?

While I have my gripes with the DAM process, I don't blame the holder(s)
of that position for some developers in the past having proven
untrustworthy.  The DAM should not be embarrassed by having let in
someone who also fooled everyone else.  The DAMs' job is to manage
accounts, not gaze into people's souls.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  When dogma enters the brain, all
Debian GNU/Linux   |  intellectual activity ceases.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Robert Anton Wilson
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpvqcgI0KxVf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 05:08:42PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 09:18, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> 
> > *  (Nathanael Nerode)
> > 
> > | I'm sure no DDs want to volunteer *while* there's someone officially
> > | in the job and the DPL is "satisfied" with them, as it might be
> > | perceived as an attack, and wouldn't have any effect anyway!  If the
> > | DPL *asked* for volunteers, that might be different.
> > 
> > But would the person who volunteered have the trust of the Debian
> > Developers?
> > 
> I'd instantly distrust anyone who *WANTED* to be DAM :-)

I would question their sanity and wonder whether they had any idea
what the job involved.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


pgpjrK87iQNB8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Scott James Remnant]

On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 09:18, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> *  (Nathanael Nerode)
> 
> | I'm sure no DDs want to volunteer *while* there's someone officially
> | in the job and the DPL is "satisfied" with them, as it might be
> | perceived as an attack, and wouldn't have any effect anyway!  If the
> | DPL *asked* for volunteers, that might be different.
> 
> But would the person who volunteered have the trust of the Debian
> Developers?
> 
I'd instantly distrust anyone who *WANTED* to be DAM :-)

Scott
-- 
Who believes those kinds of people are crazy.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Tollef Fog Heen]

*  (Nathanael Nerode)

| I'm sure no DDs want to volunteer *while* there's someone officially
| in the job and the DPL is "satisfied" with them, as it might be
| perceived as an attack, and wouldn't have any effect anyway!  If the
| DPL *asked* for volunteers, that might be different.

But would the person who volunteered have the trust of the Debian
Developers?

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are  : :' :
  `. `' 
`-  

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Matthew Garrett]

Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:51:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Someone who enters Debian is in a position to upload a package that
>> could backdoor a very large number of machines. Attention to detail at
>> the DAM stage is *more* important than pretty much any other decision
>> making process in Debian. If the DAM fucks up even once, we lose
>> massively.
>
>There's that paranoia spectre again.  There is nothing that stops a
>current DD from doing the exact same thing.  There is also nothing to
>indicate that the above is DAM's reasoning for the extremely long
>delays.  If an applicant isn't clearly trustworthy within 60-90 days is
>another 9 months or more truly going to help?  It would be better (and
>safer according to your argument) to refuse the application and let them
>reapply later, or even state that as a reason for having the applicant
>wait a longer period.  Instead we simply leave the applicant in limbo
>without any update.

No, that's not what I said. Please go back and read it again.

There is nothing that stops a current DD from uploading a malicious
package, true. People could betray the trust that is held in them. Part
of the reason that this hasn't happened is that we've only let people
into Debian if they're trusted, and so should continue to do so.

As for paranoia - yes, of course. Debian should be paranoid. Insanely
so. If one single person uploaded a trojaned package just before a
freeze and got it into a release without anyone spotting (and look at
how long it took for the micq issue to be spotted), the project would be
*dead*. People trust Debian, but that trust can only be justified if the
developers themselves can be trusted.

>> Is anyone appropriate for the task currently volunteering to do so?
>
>Just because people aren't beating down the door to volunteer doesn't
>mean there isn't someone that would accept the job and do a
>significantly better job then the current one.  Hell, the position isn't
>even open so I would hazard a guess that most people aren't volunteering
>for it becuase it's listed as filled.

Anyone actually qualified to fill the role should be aware of this
discussion, and well able to voice their willingness to be involved.

>> We occasionally bitch about the length of time it takes the security
>> team to produce an update for certain things, but it seems to be
>> generally understood that it's taking that long because that's how
>> long it takes. Without potentially compromising the entire project,
>> I'm unconvinced that the DAM process could be made significantly
>> faster.
>
>I doubt the security team is as unresponsive as the current DAM.
>Release of information/explainations have a way of creating
>understanding.  The current DAM has release no information or
>explaination for the current state of affairs, and based on past
>performance isn't likely to.

That's something that should be rectified, but it's not necessarily
something that the DAM has to do. Creating a document describing the
DAM's roles and responibilities and what he actually does during the DAM
approval stage is not a dreadfully difficult task, and would be a good
project for somebody to work on. This (and associated) thread ought to
be a reasonable starting point.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Matthew Garrett]

Jamin W. Collins wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:17:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> What's the alternative? 
>
>A more responsive DAM, one that has time for the tasks that the job
>requires.  This would reduce the wait time for DAM approval and remove
>the need for "special treatment".

Yes, yes, and the alternative to starvation is adequate food supply.
Simply stating an idealistic state isn't helpful - how do we get there?

>> The DAM is responsible for making the final decision that leads to
>> someone entering Debian. It's a position that requires someone who can
>> spend sufficient time and effort to go beyond what the AM does - stuff
>> like behaviour on mailing lists and past interaction with Free
>> software development is outside the remit of the application manager,
>> but should be taken into account when a developer is accepted. 
>
>Where are these requirements documented?  No one (DPL included) has been
>able to provide a listing of DAMs responsibilities and authority.

Common sense, mostly. The AM makes a recommendation to the DAM, and the
DAM takes that into account when deciding whether to create the account.
Yes, this should be documented.

>> James is unable to process applications any faster, so for the process
>> to be speeded up we'd need to find someone else who can be trusted to
>> perform work to the same level. It's something that's a huge
>> responsibility and consumes large amounts of time, and I don't see
>> many people jumping at the opportunity.
>
>If it consumes such large amounts of time (and I'm not saying it
>doesn't) then perhaps someone with less on their plate than James should
>be doing it.  It seems he's got a number of other responsibilities that,
>more than likely, take considerable amounts of his time.

Perhaps so. Who?

>You say that we'd need to find someone "who can be trusted to perform
>work to the same level".  I don't see that James *is* doing the work
>he's supposed to be doing.  In fact, I see quite the opposite, he's
>*not* doing the work.  That's why we have this problem.  Sure it's a
>sensitive position that requires trust in the person filling it.
>However, a person with trust that doesn't do the job they volunteered
>for or accepted is useless.  I find it hard to believe that out of all
>of the DDs a suitable replacement (that would actually do the job)
>couldn't be found.

But he /does/ do the job - people who are trusted to be Debian
developers end up in that state and as yet, nobody who plainly shouldn't
have been in Debian seems to have got in, which is a good sign. Your
complaint is about it not happening in a timely fashion, which is a
separate issue entirely.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:57:51PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

 > | An NM can do little more if he sees a problem in the Debian way of
 > | doing things.
 > 
 > You can't change a system from the outside.

 Actually that's not true.  The mere observation of a system will change
 it.  Jamie, by just stating what's wrong with the system, is changing
 the system, otherwise this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

 -m.

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[cermi]

>> Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...
> I assume what was meant was that a prospective DD was interested in
> adopting the package?
But Ted T'so could be his sponsor now that he has hijacked judy.
 
I've cc-ed Eduardo Cermeño as I think he's not on this list yet. 

Actually I was not in the list. Thanks for the message.
I was pretty interested in that package, but for sure I will be much slower 
that Theodore, so I will have no problem with whatever solution
you may find better. Just tell me (now I'll check debian-devel list). 

Greets
Eduardo 

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:20:57AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> So, who does DAM report to?

In actual fact, no one in particular.

>  Who can do something about this extremely long wait?

Theoretically, the DPL.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  "To be is to do"   -- Plato
Debian GNU/Linux   |  "To do is to be"   -- Aristotle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  "Do be do be do"   -- Sinatra
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpM1H9ELDFJn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Aníbal Monsalve Salazar]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 23:25 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:58:55PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >> > There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
>  
> >> > Debian Bug report logs - #172772
> >> > ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dynamic
>  
> >> Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...
> 
> > I'm not on d-montors, and no one had noted this fact in BTS.   Sorry.
> 
> Afaict [EMAIL PROTECTED] was almost a whole day faster than you
> retitling the bug.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=172772&msg=6
> 
> > I assume what was meant was that a prospective DD was interested in
> > adopting the package?
> 
> Yes, look for threads started by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in debian-mentors
> archive.
> 
> > Does that person have a sponsor?  If so, could
> > the sponsor contact me?  We can probably work something out.
> 
> Afaict he was not yet ready to upload.

But Ted T'so could be his sponsor now that he has hijacked judy.

> cu andreas

I've cc-ed Eduardo Cermeño as I think he's not on this list yet.

Aníbal


pgptkCsif3HQp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Andreas Metzler]

Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:58:55PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> > There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
 
>> > Debian Bug report logs - #172772
>> > ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dynamic
 
>> Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...

> I'm not on d-montors, and no one had noted this fact in BTS.   Sorry.

Afaict [EMAIL PROTECTED] was almost a whole day faster than you
retitling the bug.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=172772&msg=6

> I assume what was meant was that a prospective DD was interested in
> adopting the package?

Yes, look for threads started by [EMAIL PROTECTED] in debian-mentors
archive.

> Does that person have a sponsor?  If so, could
> the sponsor contact me?  We can probably work something out.

Afaict he was not yet ready to upload.
cu andreas

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Jamin W. Collins]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 07:23:55PM +0200, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> > No, you've been waiting 188 days (as of today) for DAM according to:
> 
> Hm, there are two possibilities:
> 
> a) I'm blind
> b) You're wrong

Ahh I'm indeed wrong, misread the year both times.  You have amazing
patience if you haven't bitched about this before.  Your situation makes
this even more depressing.  Here I thought 470 was the current top end,
now I find that I may as well not get worked up about it until I've been
waiting for nearly 2 years.  Something has to change.

-- 
Jamin W. Collins

Remember, root always has a loaded gun.  Don't run around with it unless
you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Mateusz Papiernik]

> No, you've been waiting 188 days (as of today) for DAM according to:

Hm, there are two possibilities:

a) I'm blind
b) You're wrong

because...

> 2002-01-04.  I'm only referring to the time since the application was

its... *January*2002* and today is *July*2003* - its about year and half.



Regards!
Mati

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Jamin W. Collins]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 05:06:45PM +0200, Robert J?rdens wrote:

> Oh guys. I'm waiting some 500 days now. I think that's a record (the
> current is around 470). And I'm still working and contributing. Some
> nice other DDs stepped forward and wrote mails to the DAM but that
> didn't cause anything.

No, you've been waiting 188 days (as of today) for DAM according to:
   
   http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=rjo%40gmx.de

According to the above page you application was approved by your AM on
2002-01-04.  I'm only referring to the time since the application was
approved by AM and DAM became the holdup.  You have still been waiting
longer, but could still have another 290 days to go (before a new
record).

So, who does DAM report to?  Who can do something about this extremely
long wait?

-- 
Jamin W. Collins

Remember, root always has a loaded gun.  Don't run around with it unless
you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Robert Jördens]

Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Oh guys. I'm waiting some 500 days now. I think that's a record (the 
current is around 470). And I'm still working and contributing. Some nice 
other DDs stepped forward and wrote mails to the DAM but that didn't cause 
anything.

Robert.
As of today, I've been awaiting
DAM approval now for 155 days, with no end to the wait in sight.  I've
already adopted one orphaned package (Jabber) and made significant
improvements to it.  However, the 150+ day wait for DAM approval has
deterred me from looking at adopting any more packages.
I'm not quite at the 150+ day point, but for what it's worth, this is
exactly the reason I haven't yet adopted more packages either.
However, the DAM approval process needs serious review.  Keeping anyone
in awaiting DAM approval for more than 60 days without any kind of
notice or update is quite frankly rude and unneeded.

AOL.

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:58:55PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
> > 
> > Debian Bug report logs - #172772
> > ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dynamic
> 
> Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...

I'm not on d-montors, and no one had noted this fact in BTS.   Sorry.

I assume what was meant was that a prospective DD was interested in
adopting the package?  Does that person have a sponsor?  If so, could
the sponsor contact me?  We can probably work something out.

- Ted

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Joey Hess]

Joshua Kwan wrote:
> >  >svgalib (#173471), orphaned 205 days ago
> >  >  Description: Console SVGA display libraries
> >  Of all those people, someone surely has an interest in this.  Or
> >  perhaps it's time to just drop this crash-inducing security-scary
> >  package?
> 
> This one kind of shocked me. I sure hope it conflicts with
> harden-something. And directfb has mostly superseded it for computers
> where you would expect to be able to do things fairly smoothly.

There's nothing insecure about it if the program using it is not suid.

I would be happy to see it removed, or to see it be made policy that
programs that use svgalib not be shipped suid.

> >  >xtrojka (#156524), orphaned 331 days ago (non-free)
> >  >  Description: Fast paced columns-like game
> > 
> >  YATP.  And it's non-free!
> 
> It sucks, IMHO. xemeraldia beats the stuffing out of many tetris
> packages, and don't forget crack-attack ;D

I agree that xtrojka sucks, and I was the original maintainer.

-- 
see shy jo


pgphQjmrGRtuj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Matthias Urlichs]

Hi, Jamin W. Collins wrote:

> As of today, I've been awaiting
> DAM approval now for 155 days, with no end to the wait in sight.  I've
> already adopted one orphaned package (Jabber) and made significant
> improvements to it.  However, the 150+ day wait for DAM approval has
> deterred me from looking at adopting any more packages.

I'm not quite at the 150+ day point, but for what it's worth, this is
exactly the reason I haven't yet adopted more packages either.

> However, the DAM approval process needs serious review.  Keeping anyone
> in awaiting DAM approval for more than 60 days without any kind of
> notice or update is quite frankly rude and unneeded.

AOL.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs   |   {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de   |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
-- 
To succeed planning alone is insufficient. One must improvise as well.
-- Salvor Hardin

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Stefan Gybas]

Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
[junit-freenet (#165504), orphaned 264 days ago]
When I look at the cvs, two  classes have been commited 8 month ago, the
other 23 month ago!..
I will adopt this package but I won't upload a new version. I have asked 
for its removal instead (#200949). Let's see which other useless Java 
packages we can get rid of this way... ;-)

Stefan

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Joshua Kwan]

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 08:25:57AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:
> 
> Debian Bug report logs - #172772
> ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dynamic

Oh dear, Ted T'so just uploaded it and assumed maintainership...

-Josh

-- 
"Notice that, written there, rather legibly, in the Baroque style common 
to New York subway wall writers, was, uhm... was the old familiar 
suggestion. And rather beautifully illustrated, as well..."

   -- Art Garfunkel on the inspiration for "A Poem On The Underground Wall"


pgpdPoNvor6LC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Thomas Viehmann]

Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> 
>>On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
>>Packages wrote:
>> >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
>> >  Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arrays
>> >  Reverse Depends: libjudy-dev
>>
>> I thought that bogus bogofilter depended on this for building...
> 
> 
> bogofilter used to use this, but doesnt any longer. anybody opposed to
> removing it?

There's someone on d-mentors wanting to adopt this. As in the BTS:

Debian Bug report logs - #172772
ITA: judy -- C library for creating and accessing dynamic

Cheers

T.



pgpjsNbEXKAcj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 11:15:31PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> > Packages wrote:
> >  >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
> >  >  Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arrays
> >  >  Reverse Depends: libjudy-dev
> > 
> >  I thought that bogus bogofilter depended on this for building...
> 
> bogofilter used to use this, but doesnt any longer. anybody opposed to
> removing it?

Looking at the documentation, this looks like a very interesting
library.  It would be a shame to lose it from Debian, and the package
looks like it builds cleanly and has no bug.  I'd be willing to adopt
it.

- Ted

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Graham Wilson]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> Packages wrote:
>  >py-xmlrpc (#161224), orphaned 296 days ago
>  >  Description: Implementation of the XML-RPC protocol for Python
> 
>  Let me guess... the snake lovers came up with something better?

#200934

>  >transformiix (#174344), orphaned 196 days ago
>  >  Description: An XSLT processor
> 
>  I have read nice things about this, I think.

try building it though. its like death. #200936

-- 
gram


pgplT0IUglf7T.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Graham Wilson]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> Packages wrote:
>  >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
>  >  Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arrays
>  >  Reverse Depends: libjudy-dev
> 
>  I thought that bogus bogofilter depended on this for building...

bogofilter used to use this, but doesnt any longer. anybody opposed to
removing it?

-- 
gram


pgpZQDmnMUPF0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Graham Wilson]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
> Packages wrote:
>  >gnome-objc (#165642), orphaned 263 days ago
>  >  Description: objective-c bindings for gtk/gnome (obs.)
>  >  Reverse Depends: libobgnome-dev libobgtk-dev libobgnome0 gnome-admin
> 
>  No GTK+ 2 yet, uh?  Upstream still alive?

no and no. but it has a reverse depends on gnome-admin. does anybody
still use that? noel? if so, maybe you could adopt this; otherwise lets
remove it.

-- 
gram


pgpeLqGOqJUZO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[John Paul Wallington]

> But apparently I was under the wrong impression about which branch of
> Emacs development was going to be released.  I committed calc to what
> was HEAD at the time, and I thought that was going to become 21.3, but
> there was a different branch slated for release.  Anyways, calc will be
> in 21.4.  Just check out Emacs from CVS and peruse "NEWS".
> 
> The next obvious question is when 21.4 is going to be released, and I
> can't answer that...

The vibes I have gotten from following the emacs-devel list is that
21.4 may come from the RC branch (looks like there are enough commits
post 21.3 to warrant it), in which case HEAD will be 21.5.

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 11-Jul-03, 02:21 (CDT), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> > 
> > Because it's damn near impossible to get the things removed.
> 
> Huh? Submit a bug report against ftp.debian.org, and ask that the
> package be removed. What's so hard about it?

You mean like #198449?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'  | Imperial College,
   `- -><-  | London, UK


pgps6NbFf5Uth.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Keegan Quinn]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:34:23PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  So, you mean, this is not the package our users should be looking at
>  when they search for a VoIP application?  It's not only orphaned but
>  not even used? *HINT* *HINT*

It would be nice to see some popularity-contest data for this, and perhaps
even all of the packages in your list...  Of course it's not perfect, but
that might give us some vague idea of how widely used these packages are.

 - Keegan


pgpCmCoiPLlzH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Colin Walters]

On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 03:13, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

>   I use this package, and am interested in adopting it, except
>  that I note that Colin Walters states that:
> 
> >  I am orphaning the calc package; it is now included in the GNU Emacs   
> > 
> >  CVS, and will be in the coming 20.3 release.  Since I think XEmacs has 
> > 
> >  their own version of calc, this package will soon have little purpose in   
> > 
> >  life except to provide calc for Emacs 20 users, who should be switching
> > 
> >  to Emacs 21 anyways.   
> > 
> 
>[I think he meant 21.3, not 20.3]

I did...

>   I note, however, that we have 21.3 in unstable, and we still
>  do not seem to have calc in emacs21. Does anyone know what happened?
>  I note that ftp://ftp.gnu.org/poub/gnu/calc/ still contains calc
>  2.02f.tar.gz from 1997.

But apparently I was under the wrong impression about which branch of
Emacs development was going to be released.  I committed calc to what
was HEAD at the time, and I thought that was going to become 21.3, but
there was a different branch slated for release.  Anyways, calc will be
in 21.4.  Just check out Emacs from CVS and peruse "NEWS".

The next obvious question is when 21.4 is going to be released, and I
can't answer that...

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Jamin W. Collins]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 05:34:23PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:28:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>  > >  >gphone (#161708), orphaned 293 days ago
>  > >  >  Description: X/GTK-based internet telephone.
>  > 
>  > >  I'd thought there'd be more people interested in this kind of
>  > >  thing...
>  > 
>  > There's newer, vastly more widely implemented standards for VoIP
>  > these days and that's where all the active interest and development
>  > is going.
> 
>  So, you mean, this is not the package our users should be looking at
>  when they search for a VoIP application?  It's not only orphaned but
>  not even used? *HINT* *HINT*

There are probably people still using it.  However, looking at the
application's homepage, it doesn't appear that it supports either the
older H.323 or new SIP standards.  This is probably why there is a lack
of interest in it.

-- 
Jamin W. Collins

This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots
of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:32:01AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:

 > Huh? Submit a bug report against ftp.debian.org, and ask that the
 > package be removed. What's so hard about it?

 I wish it would be that easy.  I haven't read the thread, but I'm
 willing to bet someone has already declared me a heretic for ignoring
 our users' interests when I hinted that some packages should be removed
 from the archive.  That was the case a couple of years back at least.
 I beleive the most vocal defender of that position was Adrian.  Perhaps
 things have changed now.

 > I suppose there might be an issue the original maintainer is MIA, but
 > if a package has been on the "orphaned" list for >6 months, then that
 > should be sufficient to get the package pulled and the WNPP bug
 > closed.

 I argued for that about two years ago and eventually got tired of the
 argument I paraphrased above so I gave up.

 > Or perhaps we should just decree that no unmaitained packages go out
 > in a stable release.

 I actually argued for that, too.  The release manager disagreed -- or
 better worded, he saw no major problem as long as the package didn't
 have any RC bugs (and I apologize in advance to Anthony if I'm putting
 words in his mouth, but that's my recollection and I don't feel like
 diving in the archive right now).

 > At the beginning of the freeze, mark all the WNPP packages for
 > removal (along with their dependencies :-)), and then see if we can
 > inspire some reaction.

 LOL

 That's actually an idea...

 Marcelo

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 04:28:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

 > >  >gphone (#161708), orphaned 293 days ago
 > >  >  Description: X/GTK-based internet telephone.
 > 
 > >  I'd thought there'd be more people interested in this kind of thing...
 > 
 > There's newer, vastly more widely implemented standards for VoIP
 > these days and that's where all the active interest and development
 > is going.

 So, you mean, this is not the package our users should be looking at
 when they search for a VoIP application?  It's not only orphaned but
 not even used? *HINT* *HINT*

 ObQA: Perhaps someone there takes the hint and agrees to kick the
   package out of sid and sarge after carefully considering the
   alternatives.

 Thanks,

-- 
Marcelo

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:

>  >gphone (#161708), orphaned 293 days ago
>  >  Description: X/GTK-based internet telephone.

>  I'd thought there'd be more people interested in this kind of thing...

There's newer, vastly more widely implemented standards for VoIP these
days and that's where all the active interest and development is going.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Jamin W. Collins]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:

>  I can't believe that the QA people can say, with a straight face,
>  that they are willing to maintain this pile of dung until someone
>  shows up.  If we have so many maintainers and there are more at the
>  burg's doors piling over each other in order to enter, why does the
>  WNPP list keep growing like this?

Sure there are a number of people at "burg's doors" waiting to become a
Debian Maintainer.  I'm one of them.  As of today, I've been awaiting
DAM approval now for 155 days, with no end to the wait in sight.  I've
already adopted one orphaned package (Jabber) and made significant
improvements to it.  However, the 150+ day wait for DAM approval has
deterred me from looking at adopting any more packages.

Perhaps a requirement of becoming a Debian Maintainer could be the
adoption of one of the WNPP packages (assuming there are any in line
with the applicants skills).  

However, the DAM approval process needs serious review.  Keeping anyone
in awaiting DAM approval for more than 60 days without any kind of
notice or update is quite frankly rude and unneeded.

-- 
Jamin W. Collins

Remember, root always has a loaded gun.  Don't run around with it unless
you absolutely need it. -- Vineet Kumar

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Chad Walstrom]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >py-xmlrpc (#161224), orphaned 296 days ago
> >  Description: Implementation of the XML-RPC protocol for Python
>
> Let me guess... the snake lovers came up with something better?

py-xmlrpc is integrated into the Python 2.2 library.
http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-xmlrpclib.html.  I don't
even see the package in woody.

-- 
Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.wookimus.net/
   assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */


pgp5zokIJiJg9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Lukas Geyer]

"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  >wavtools (#155263), orphaned 342 days ago
>  >  Description: WAV play, record, and compression
> 
>  Just like sox! Not really...

Well, wavtools is a pile of crap, as detailed by Daniel Kobras in
#97589. I just filed for its removal.

Lukas

P.S.: Thanks for the commented junkya^Wlist, Marcelo. I found it very
useful.

-- 
Give a man an answer, and he's satisfied today. Teach him to program,
and he will be frustrated for the rest of his life. 

RE: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Julian Mehnle]

Steve Greenland wrote:
> Or perhaps we should just decree that no unmaitained packages go out
> in a stable release. At the beginning of the freeze, mark all the WNPP
> packages for removal (along with their dependencies :-)), and then see
> if we can inspire some reaction.

Good idea!  An even better idea would be to remove packages from "testing" if 
they're orphaned for >6 months.

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Steve Greenland]

On 11-Jul-03, 02:21 (CDT), Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> 
> Because it's damn near impossible to get the things removed.

Huh? Submit a bug report against ftp.debian.org, and ask that the
package be removed. What's so hard about it?

I suppose there might be an issue the original maintainer is MIA, but
if a package has been on the "orphaned" list for >6 months, then that
should be sufficient to get the package pulled and the WNPP bug closed.

Or perhaps we should just decree that no unmaitained packages go out
in a stable release. At the beginning of the freeze, mark all the WNPP
packages for removal (along with their dependencies :-)), and then see
if we can inspire some reaction.

Steve


-- 
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world.   -- seen on the net

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Arnaud Vandyck]

"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>  >junit-freenet (#165504), orphaned 264 days ago
>  >  Description: basic reimplementation of the JUnit unit testing
>  >  framework
> 
>  Ah... Java...

>From the author:

This is  a basic reimplementation  of the JUnit unit  testing framework,
licensed under  the GNU GPL (JUnit  is, for some  reason, released under
the IBM Public  License). This was just an afternoons  hack, so for real
testing you  may still  wish to use  JUnit, but developing  against this
should avoid any questions regarding  licensing (since you are using the
GPL, right?).

This  code is  written without  the  authorization or  knowledge of  the
original JUnit  authors, and  bears no relation  to their code  short of
containing the same class, method, and field names.

&& oskar sandberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

When I look at the cvs, two  classes have been commited 8 month ago, the
other 23 month ago!..

I  do not  know if  the upstream  is  very active  on this  part of  the
project...

-- Arnaud Vandyck
   http://alioth.debian.org/users/arnaud-guest/

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Joshua Kwan]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  >docbook-to-man (#154590), orphaned 347 days ago
>  >  Description: Converter from DocBook SGML into roff -man macros
>  >  Reverse Depends: gtk-doc-tools
> 
>  If gtk-doc-tools depends on this, perhaps the GTK+ folk care to
>  maintain a package that, from the description alone, consists of a
>  script and some style sheets?

I use this extensively in my packages, but I'm not so good with the base
SGML stuff in Debian yet. If I get with the program I will probably
adopt this one.

>  >gdkxft (#173651), orphaned 203 days ago
>  >  Description: transparently adds anti-aliased font support to
>  >  gtk+-1.2

DIE KILL DIE KILL DIE KILL this has given me nothing but *problems*

>  >gtk-engines-cleanice (#162410), orphaned 287 days ago
>  >  Description: CleanIce theme for GTK+ 1.2
> 
>  And I thought this was one of thise 37337 engines that are on the
>  must-install-in-all-boxes list.

Again, I still need to get with the picture, this time WRT GTK+ theme engines
in general. ATM I'm treating them like a black box of C code which Just Works

>  >kernel-image-2.2.20-udma100-ext3-i386 (#158152), orphaned 433 days ago
>  >  Description: Linux kernel binary image for version
>  >  2.2.20-udma100-ext3
>  >  Reverse Depends: pcmcia-modules-2.2.20-udma100-ext3

Personally I'd pull this one for next release. Are many people still
using it? It seems patched to the kills and probably not so great. (2.2
just by itself isn't so great too...)

>  >kernel-patch-ethernet-drivers (#158153), orphaned 433 days ago
>  >  Description: patches with drivers for ethernet cards
> 
>  Which are apparently not needed anymore, uh?

Correct. These are all in 2.4.21, aren't they? I'd pull it

>  >kernel-patch-ext3-2.2 (#158154), orphaned 433 days ago
>  >  Description: ext3fs support for Linux 2.2.19 and 2.2.20
> 
>  Ah... more old patches...

Same

>  >pclock (#156523), orphaned 331 days ago
>  >  Description: Clock Dock app for Window Maker window manager

wmclock is more my cup of tea

>  >snes9express (#174126), orphaned 199 days ago
>  >  Description: GTK+ front-end for snes9x
> 
>  Not into Nintendos anymore, uh?

Actually using 'snes9x' by itself once the whole shebang is set up is a
lot easier than using this very silly GUI. I'd pull it, but it is
something that sounds like people are interested in
 
>  >svgalib (#173471), orphaned 205 days ago
>  >  Description: Console SVGA display libraries
>  Of all those people, someone surely has an interest in this.  Or
>  perhaps it's time to just drop this crash-inducing security-scary
>  package?

This one kind of shocked me. I sure hope it conflicts with
harden-something. And directfb has mostly superseded it for computers
where you would expect to be able to do things fairly smoothly.

>  >xkbsel (#172021), orphaned 216 days ago
>  >  Description: Tool for defining, selecting, and indicating XKB
>  >  keyboards.
>  Oh-key.

[badum-tish]

>  >xtrojka (#156524), orphaned 331 days ago (non-free)
>  >  Description: Fast paced columns-like game
> 
>  YATP.  And it's non-free!

It sucks, IMHO. xemeraldia beats the stuffing out of many tetris
packages, and don't forget crack-attack ;D

Just my 2 $SMALLEST_DENOMINATION

-Josh

-- 
"Notice that, written there, rather legibly, in the Baroque style common 
to New York subway wall writers, was, uhm... was the old familiar 
suggestion. And rather beautifully illustrated, as well..."

   -- Art Garfunkel on the inspiration for "A Poem On The Underground Wall"


pgpF2SnQur9SL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Sam Hocevar]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:

>  >g5 (#165500), orphaned 264 days ago
>  >  Description: gtk-based 5-in-a-row game
> 
>  Not an attractive one?

   It's still gtk1 and uses O and X characters to display the pieces,
so "not attractive" is probably the correct description. The AI seems
OK though. I ported it to gtk2 and will send patches to the BTS when I
have some time.

>  >gtk-engines-cleanice (#162410), orphaned 287 days ago
>  >  Description: CleanIce theme for GTK+ 1.2
> 
>  And I thought this was one of thise 37337 engines that are on the
>  must-install-in-all-boxes list.

   I use it. If no one show interest in it, I'll adopt the package and
maintain it until gtk1 is no longer used (as if).

>  >svgalib (#173471), orphaned 205 days ago
>  >  (...)
> 
>  Of all those people, someone surely has an interest in this.  Or
>  perhaps it's time to just drop this crash-inducing security-scary
>  package?

   Is anyone working on this? svgalib is x86 only, doesn't work with
most cards and needs root, but it is very fast. And upstream is not very
active these days, but the pre-2 releases looked promising. I would like
to help in any effort done on the svgalib packages, but I do not feel
like adopting it since I only have two different video cards.

   In the other hand, porting an svgalib program so that it uses SDL
instead is not extremely difficult (I did it for gravitywars), and SDL
has an svgalib backend so almost no features are lost.

-- 
Sam.

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Andreas Metzler]

Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
> >  Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arrays
> >  Reverse Depends: libjudy-dev

> I thought that bogus bogofilter depended on this for building...

Iirc (but I only follw bogfilter's MLs very loosely), bogofilter's
dependency on judy was abolished at least 6 months ago.

[...]
> >pclock (#156523), orphaned 331 days ago
> >  Description: Clock Dock app for Window Maker window manager

> I maintain and use asclock, thanks, but this is a really nice app,
> should someone be interested, that is.
[...]

If I weren't using asclock happily.

[...]
> >svgalib (#173471), orphaned 205 days ago
> >  Description: Console SVGA display libraries
> >  Reverse Depends: snes9x-svga yh sabre lockvc atari800 cthugha
> >  libggimisc2 uae-suid libsdl1.2debian-all apple2 spectemu-svga
> >  crystalspace xsabre thrust svgalib1-altdev svgalib1 zgv freecraft
> >  lirc-svga xpcd-svga bmv xaos synaesthesia dvisvga quake2 xmame-svga
> >  svgalib-bin chdrv gnuboy-svga abuse lxdoom-svga lincity-svga lcdproc
> >  povray fceu-svga qcam vgacardgames ohphone vlc-plugin-svgalib
> >  zblast-svgalib svncviewer acidwarp liballegro4a-plugin-svgalib
> >  razzle vgagamespack xmame-fx luxman svgalibg1-dev
> >  libggi-target-svgalib

> Of all those people, someone surely has an interest in this.  Or
> perhaps it's time to just drop this crash-inducing security-scary
> package?

Valid suggestion. Personally I've never used svgalib (I did not like
SUID) and have been using framebuffer (MGA) for text applications and
viewing a picture one and then and X11 for stuff requiring hardware
accelleration. (Doom.)

Does svgalib offer enhancements compared to vesafb? (higher refresh
rates?)

[...]
> >transformiix (#174344), orphaned 196 days ago
> >  Description: An XSLT processor

> I have read nice things about this, I think.

There is xsltproc, which has identical long and short description,
works reasonably well and seems to have quite upstream autors.

[...]
> >xanim (#148507), orphaned 407 days ago (non-free)
> >  Description: Plays multimedia files (animations, pictures, and
> >  sounds)
> >  Reverse Depends: tkxanim xanim-modules

> Go away, you non-free thing.

AOL!
 cu andreas

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:49:46 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
said: 

>> calc (#175399), orphaned 186 days ago Description: An advanced
>> calculator and mathematical tool for Emacs Reverse Depends:
>> riece-ndcc

>  Maybe the maintainer of riece-ndcc cares about this?

I use this package, and am interested in adopting it, except
 that I note that Colin Walters states that:

>  I am orphaning the calc package; it is now included in the GNU Emacs 
>   
>  CVS, and will be in the coming 20.3 release.  Since I think XEmacs has   
>   
>  their own version of calc, this package will soon have little purpose in 
>   
>  life except to provide calc for Emacs 20 users, who should be switching  
>   
>  to Emacs 21 anyways. 
>   

   [I think he meant 21.3, not 20.3]

I note, however, that we have 21.3 in unstable, and we still
 do not seem to have calc in emacs21. Does anyone know what happened?
 I note that ftp://ftp.gnu.org/poub/gnu/calc/ still contains calc
 2.02f.tar.gz from 1997.

>  I've CC'd this to the debian-emacsen list in case any Debian Emacs   
>   
>  hacker wants to adopt it.
>   

And I am CC'ing that list to see if anyone can shed any light
 on this issue.

manoj
-- 
Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leave school, and then work,
work, work till we die. C.S. Lewis
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Andrew Suffield]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:49:46AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  I won't apologize for the long email.  When I started writing this I
>  hoped it would be rather short.  The fact that it isn't only tells me
>  that I was right -- about two years ago.  I can't believe that the QA
>  people can say, with a straight face, that they are willing to maintain
>  this pile of dung until someone shows up.  If we have so many
>  maintainers and there are more at the burg's doors piling over each
>  other in order to enter, why does the WNPP list keep growing like this?

Because it's damn near impossible to get the things removed.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'  | Imperial College,
   `- -><-  | London, UK


pgpnxKlZg4btQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

Hi folks,

 I won't apologize for the long email.  When I started writing this I
 hoped it would be rather short.  The fact that it isn't only tells me
 that I was right -- about two years ago.  I can't believe that the QA
 people can say, with a straight face, that they are willing to maintain
 this pile of dung until someone shows up.  If we have so many
 maintainers and there are more at the burg's doors piling over each
 other in order to enter, why does the WNPP list keep growing like this?
 I simply went over the last WNPP mail, trimming everything that's not
 180 days old yet.  I am fully aware that because of the way the WNPP
 thing works that number might not be completely accurate, but it's
 nevertheless a good first approximation.

 Caveat emptor: my mood shifted a bit as I was writing.  Some of the
 comments might have a bit more bile than they should to be PC.

 Looking at the sorry state of this list, I'm tempted to include a short
 script in the WNPP mail that'd scream "hey!  is orphaned and you
 have it installed! Be a good person and adopt it."  When I first talked
 about this with Niels the idea of the list was to _reduce_ the number
 of packages without a maintainer, not to increase the ammount of crap
 that developers get in their mail.  Any suggestions to make the WNPP
 mails more useful, or easier to read or more effective are welcomed.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 12:33:22AM -0400, Work Needing Prospective
Packages wrote:

 >blackened (#175101), orphaned 189 days ago
 >  Description: A feature rich ircII based IRC client

 Feature rich, but after six months noone seems to be interested in it.

 >calc (#175399), orphaned 186 days ago
 >  Description: An advanced calculator and mathematical tool for Emacs
 >  Reverse Depends: riece-ndcc

 Maybe the maintainer of riece-ndcc cares about this?

 >cbb (#166249), orphaned 259 days ago
 >  Description: The Check-Book Balancer, a Quicken clone

 I thought this this had merged with GNUcash upstream, didn't it?

 >docbook-to-man (#154590), orphaned 347 days ago
 >  Description: Converter from DocBook SGML into roff -man macros
 >  Reverse Depends: gtk-doc-tools

 If gtk-doc-tools depends on this, perhaps the GTK+ folk care to
 maintain a package that, from the description alone, consists of a
 script and some style sheets?

 >figurine (#162058), orphaned 290 days ago
 >  Description: An X11 vector graphics drawing program
 >  Reverse Depends: education-graphics

 Not a good one if noone adopts it after ~ 10 months.

 >g5 (#165500), orphaned 264 days ago
 >  Description: gtk-based 5-in-a-row game

 Not an attractive one?

 >gdkxft (#173651), orphaned 203 days ago
 >  Description: transparently adds anti-aliased font support to
 >  gtk+-1.2

 AFAIUI, this causes more trouble than not -- which is the reason why it
 never made to GTK+ proper and had to wait for GTK+ 2.

 >gmail (#170637), orphaned 227 days ago
 >  Description: GNOME mail client using SQL-based vfolders

 SQL-based vfolders are surely a cool thing, but it's not so cool if
 noone is maintaining this.

 >gnat-glade (#154100), orphaned 351 days ago
 >  Description: Distributed systems in Ada

 No longer required for that lecture, uh?

 >gnat-glade-doc (#154101), orphaned 351 days ago
 >  Description: GNAT Distributed Systems Annex documentation

 But it's documented!

 >gnome-objc (#165642), orphaned 263 days ago
 >  Description: objective-c bindings for gtk/gnome (obs.)
 >  Reverse Depends: libobgnome-dev libobgtk-dev libobgnome0 gnome-admin

 No GTK+ 2 yet, uh?  Upstream still alive?

 >gphone (#161708), orphaned 293 days ago
 >  Description: X/GTK-based internet telephone.

 I'd thought there'd be more people interested in this kind of thing...

 >gtk-engines-cleanice (#162410), orphaned 287 days ago
 >  Description: CleanIce theme for GTK+ 1.2

 And I thought this was one of thise 37337 engines that are on the
 must-install-in-all-boxes list.

 >hns2 (#152701), orphaned 364 days ago
 >  Description: Hyper Nikki System
 >  Reverse Depends: hns2

 Ok.  Whatever that means, it's been orphaned for a year.

 >htmlheadline (#164988), orphaned 267 days ago
 >  Description: Automatically fetch news headlines

 Yet another orphan script?

 >ipchains-perl (#123694), orphaned 575 days ago
 >  Description: Perl interface to ipchains

 ipchains, no wonder it's orphaned.

 >judy (#172772), orphaned 210 days ago
 >  Description: C library for creating and accessing dynamic arrays
 >  Reverse Depends: libjudy-dev

 I thought that bogus bogofilter depended on this for building...

 >junit-freenet (#165504), orphaned 264 days ago
 >  Description: basic reimplementation of the JUnit unit testing
 >  framework

 Ah... Java...

 >kernel-image-2.2.20-udma100-ext3-i386 (#158152), orphaned 433 days ago
 >  Description: Linux