Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 08:16:26PM +0200, Steven Post wrote: Reading this I assume ia32-libs will be removed from Debian (with which I completely agree btw), what about packages outside of Debian that currently depend upon ia32-libs? To name a certain package: skype. Its AMD64 package from the official website depends on it. You can use http://archive.canonical.com/pool/partner/s/skype/skype-bin_2.2.0.35-0precise3_i386.deb -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:52:52 -0400 (EDT), Joey Hess wrote: ... This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. It's disconcerting that we, or our users, are willing to put up with this. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. Another example is GNU parted. I contributed an enhancement to upstream GNU parted several years ago that adds support for CMS minidisks, as well as a number of related enhancements. This has significant benefit for users of the s390 and s390x ports, especially in the Debian installer environment. The contribution was accepted and is included in the upstream code in version 2.4. But the Debian package is still using version 2.3. I had hoped that the Debian package would upgrade to version 2.4 or later before the Squeeze freeze, but that did not happen. Three upstream versions later (2.4, 3.0, and now 3.1) the Debian package is still using version 2.3. It now appears that my enhancement will not appear in the Wheezy version of the package either. This is very disappointing. I'm not questioning anyone's competency, but parted is way out of date; and no-one seems to be doing anything about it. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1560597686.1629135.1339112833174.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012, Stephen Powell wrote: I'm not questioning anyone's competency, but parted is way out of date; and no-one seems to be doing anything about it. http://bugs.debian.org/646130 seems to indicate that the primary reason why we haven't yet switched to a newer version is due to the fact that d-i hasn't been adapted to use a newer version than parted 2.3. I'm fairly certain that additional assistance would be accepted by Colin Watson to fix d-i to support newer versions (or going to a parted3 package) to make this possible. Don Armstrong -- For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen. -- Douglas Adams http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120607235740.gm32...@rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the
good. It's disconcerting that we, or our users, are willing to put up
with this.
I see what you mean and I absolutely agree with the general principle.
We have a tradition of being perfectionists in Debian, which is great,
but that couldn't be at stake with actually getting something (decently)
working to our users.
But in this specific case, in which I've been involved a bit encouraging
the recent course of action, I think that was not the only issue.
Rather, the problem seemed to be a mixture of what you mentioned + the
usual difficulty in acknowledging we are busy and the willingness of
letting it go our control a bit, so that others could chime in. It is
human, understandable, to some extent normal, and very well-known in
Debian.
The problem seems now on good track to be properly solved for Wheezy,
thanks to the work of Michael, Stephen, and Ove. But if there is some
sort of a take away message on this, I think it should rather be that
opening up package maintenance when we're busy and others are willing to
contribute is often the right way to go. There is very little to lose,
very little that cannot be undone, and often a lot to gain for our
users.
Even better, maintainers can prevent this kind of things from happening
by opening up *by default*, allowing commit to package maintenance Vcs
to all DDs, and documenting that commits there are welcome as long as
they follow some house rules.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:30:01PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: We are announcing our deferred uploads at least 10 days in advance (unless RC) with git commit references, so Ove can review and/or cancel/reject our work at any point. Thus, we haven't taken any of his power away and it really can't be viewed as a takeover. A few of us are choosing to do the necessary work and review while Ove doesn't have the time to do either himself. For some definition of necessary - still, thank you for doing *something*, even if it's sticking to the letter, if not the spirit, of some seemingly arbitrary rules. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120606084730.GA9629@debian
Re: this bug .. bugs me
Simon McVittie s...@debian.org writes: On 05/06/12 16:52, Joey Hess wrote: This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Yes, pretty much. On the bright side, multiarch and a modern Wine version have both arrived (Wine 1.4 is admittedly only in experimental right now, but I hope it'll reach testing before we freeze), meaning this can finally work: archetype% dpkg --print-architecture amd64 archetype% wine --version wine-1.4 archetype% dpkg -s wine|grep Arch Architecture: i386 archetype% dpkg -s ia32-libs Package `ia32-libs' is not installed and no info is available. ... so, thanks to everyone whose work and perseverance made that possible! S Juppey. Thanks to all the workers and the NMUers that made this possible. Now if wine 1.4 enters unstable we are finaly ready to kill ia32-libs for good. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5o094xx.fsf@frosties.localnet
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 10:36:42AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:52:52AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. It's disconcerting that we, or our users, are willing to put up with this. May I bring in another example that bugs me: Source: mime-support Priority: standard Maintainer: Brian White bcwh...@pobox.com Standards-Version: 3.1.1.1 - standard package not team maintained not in Vcs According to changelog a typical upload is about one to two times a year mass closing several bugs. This might not be very spectacular, however when I scratched a bit on mime issues (Bug#497779) I and the submitter of a patch (non-DD) were contacted via PM by Brian White whether one of us want to maintain the package. I asked why he does not try to orphan or team maintain the package in case of admitted time constraints. His answer was that there is a difference between any taker and somebody who has an interested in it. This kind of handling things really bugs me as well. If a maintainer knows that he can not (fully) do the needed work but sitting silently because not trusting the community to provide proper help is something my English vocabulary is not sufficient to describe ... IMHO this perfectly fits in the sequence of cases we recently discussed here on this list which are a sign that something is broken in the way we handle maintainership. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120606112605.ga19...@an3as.eu
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On 06/06/2012 04:23 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Please don't spread incorrect information. The situation is by far not the same (as in: it's *much* better now), and that is also thanks to the discussion back then. -devel FTW, ... sometimes :-) Cheers. I can see it, and I'm very happy of it! :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fcf75f2.7090...@debian.org
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On 06/06/2012 04:36 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Even better, maintainers can prevent this kind of things from happening by opening up *by default*, allowing commit to package maintenance Vcs to all DDs, and documenting that commits there are welcome as long as they follow some house rules. Technically, is there a way to allow write access to all DDs on an Alioth Git repo, but not to anyone without upload rights? When in a team, it's easy, a bit of chmod g+w is enough, but for all DDs? Thomas P.S: I'm on the low threshold NMU list, and I'd welcome anyone to send me some git format-patch! :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fcf9ca8.4000...@debian.org
Re: this bug .. bugs me
Hi, Please forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask (or if I'm completely wrong here). On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 11:15 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [...] Juppey. Thanks to all the workers and the NMUers that made this possible. Now if wine 1.4 enters unstable we are finaly ready to kill ia32-libs for good. Reading this I assume ia32-libs will be removed from Debian (with which I completely agree btw), what about packages outside of Debian that currently depend upon ia32-libs? To name a certain package: skype. Its AMD64 package from the official website depends on it. Can we work around this somehow? I'm in no way affiliated with upstream here, but looking at their particular history I don't expect any update soon with a proper solution. Regards, Steven signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 16:12:31 -0400, Michael Gilbert mgilb...@debian.org wrote: They are members of pkg-wine already, so I think they can make changes that can improve the status but not limited to minimal changes for NMU. If Mike don't want to hijack at least for now, team upload is good enough. Hopefully this will make some people happy: I pushed the first team upload of the 1.4 series to unstable about a half-an-hour ago :) Yay! Congrats! Greetings Marc, making a fresh backup of the notebook and upgrading -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1scksq-0004n4...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Wed 06 Jun 2012 15:16:26 Steven Post escribió: [snip] Reading this I assume ia32-libs will be removed from Debian (with which I completely agree btw), what about packages outside of Debian that currently depend upon ia32-libs? To name a certain package: skype. Its AMD64 package from the official website depends on it. Can we work around this somehow? I'm in no way affiliated with upstream here, but looking at their particular history I don't expect any update soon with a proper solution. Disclaimer: I'm not througly following multiarch stuff. Well, if Debian removes ia32-libs and friends, most surely Ubuntu will follow (if not there already). Then I think those third parties who depend on it should start thinking about doing the correct thing: release a new package. My two cents, Lisandro. -- 9: Que es el Explorador de Windows * El tipo que le roba las ideas a MacOs Damian Nadales http://mx.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20080307.141449.a70fb2fc.es.html Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
dropping ia32-libs [Was, Re: this bug .. bugs me]
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 04:14:56PM -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: On Wed 06 Jun 2012 15:16:26 Steven Post escribió: [snip] Reading this I assume ia32-libs will be removed from Debian (with which I completely agree btw), what about packages outside of Debian that currently depend upon ia32-libs? To name a certain package: skype. Its AMD64 package from the official website depends on it. Can we work around this somehow? I'm in no way affiliated with upstream here, but looking at their particular history I don't expect any update soon with a proper solution. Disclaimer: I'm not througly following multiarch stuff. Well, if Debian removes ia32-libs and friends, most surely Ubuntu will follow (if not there already). Then I think those third parties who depend on it should start thinking about doing the correct thing: release a new package. My two cents, Lisandro. Ubuntu has already had a release in which ia32-libs is a transitional package; and for the past two Ubuntu releases, the amd64 skype package has not integrated correctly with the desktop (because it has Recommends that must be satisfied by i386 packages that aren't part of ia32-libs). So I guess we shouldn't expect this situation to change in the near future. OTOH, if Debian drops ia32-libs entirely, then the wrong package won't be installable and users would *have* to install the right one (the i386 one), so there's that at least. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On 06.06.2012 20:08, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 06/06/2012 04:36 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Even better, maintainers can prevent this kind of things from happening by opening up *by default*, allowing commit to package maintenance Vcs to all DDs, and documenting that commits there are welcome as long as they follow some house rules. Technically, is there a way to allow write access to all DDs on an Alioth Git repo, but not to anyone without upload rights? That's collab-maint. All developers have automatically commit access to it. This includes many non-DDs accounts too, who have applied explicitly into collab-maint, but so what? A commit can be reverted easily and people who abuse their rights probably won't have write access to collab-maint for a long. I fail to see why we would need /another/ repository for DDs only. You know we welcome everyone [1] apparently. [1] 20120606151810.gj4...@camblue.cbg.collabora.co.uk -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
Le Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:08:40AM +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit : On 06/06/2012 04:36 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Even better, maintainers can prevent this kind of things from happening by opening up *by default*, allowing commit to package maintenance Vcs to all DDs, and documenting that commits there are welcome as long as they follow some house rules. Technically, is there a way to allow write access to all DDs on an Alioth Git repo, but not to anyone without upload rights? When in a team, it's easy, a bit of chmod g+w is enough, but for all DDs? Hello Thomas, this can be granted using ACLs. http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/FAQ#How_do_I_give_write_permission_outside_my_Alioth_project_.3F Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Greetings from Singapore -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120606222904.gc23...@falafel.plessy.net
this bug .. bugs me
10 Jun 2010 a bug was filed wanting wine 1.2 packaged in time for squeeze. 12 Aug 2010 packages of 1.2 were available .. but not in Debian. 6 Feb 2011 squeeze shipped with the same wine version that shipped in lenny. 7 Mar 2012 wine 1.4 was released as the new upstream stable release 25 May 2012 wine 1.2 was finally made available in unstable I've read over this entire bug, and while there are clearly some hard problems and a lot of good work shown here, I'm seeing a concerning trend throughout it. We seem to have a problem with being willing to trade off simple solutions that will greatly benefit users, for doing things right, even when doing things right benefits users *less*. Examples of that seen in this bug include: * An idea that every old release of wine needs to be packaged in sequence, so it'll be available in snapshots, so users can pull down an old version as needed for maximal ability to find one that works. That's the theory, the actual end result is that users had no modern wine version at all to use, for many years. This is a simple tradeoff of benefits to sets of users, and the set of users who know how to use snapshot.debian.org, need a two year old version of wine there, and can find the right version is clearly much smaller than the set of users who would like the latest wine to see if it runs some program. * Wanting to support multiarch coinstallability, plus wine and wine-unstable coinstallability. Nice goal, but again it prioritises some small set of users who need 2 or even 4 versions of wine coinstalled over the larger set of users who just want the newest wine version. * Not using existing Ubuntu packages of wine despite them being available for a long time at newer versions. * People doing work allowing themselves to be blocked for a long time on some minor procedural point, like whether they have commit access to a particular git repository, or are not being added as a member of some particular team, or whether infrequent and apologetic posts by a package maintainer are enough to keep them from being considered MIA. This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. It's disconcerting that we, or our users, are willing to put up with this. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Joey Hess wrote: 10 Jun 2010 a bug was filed wanting wine 1.2 packaged in time for squeeze. 12 Aug 2010 packages of 1.2 were available .. but not in Debian. 6 Feb 2011 squeeze shipped with the same wine version that shipped in lenny. 7 Mar 2012 wine 1.4 was released as the new upstream stable release 25 May 2012 wine 1.2 was finally made available in unstable I've read over this entire bug, and while there are clearly some hard problems and a lot of good work shown here, I'm seeing a concerning trend throughout it. We seem to have a problem with being willing to trade off simple solutions that will greatly benefit users, for doing things right, even when doing things right benefits users *less*. Examples of that seen in this bug include: * An idea that every old release of wine needs to be packaged in sequence, so it'll be available in snapshots, so users can pull down an old version as needed for maximal ability to find one that works. That's the theory, the actual end result is that users had no modern wine version at all to use, for many years. This is a simple tradeoff of benefits to sets of users, and the set of users who know how to use snapshot.debian.org, need a two year old version of wine there, and can find the right version is clearly much smaller than the set of users who would like the latest wine to see if it runs some program. * Wanting to support multiarch coinstallability, plus wine and wine-unstable coinstallability. Nice goal, but again it prioritises some small set of users who need 2 or even 4 versions of wine coinstalled over the larger set of users who just want the newest wine version. * Not using existing Ubuntu packages of wine despite them being available for a long time at newer versions. * People doing work allowing themselves to be blocked for a long time on some minor procedural point, like whether they have commit access to a particular git repository, or are not being added as a member of some particular team, or whether infrequent and apologetic posts by a package maintainer are enough to keep them from being considered MIA. This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. It's disconcerting that we, or our users, are willing to put up with this. Not sure what to say other than when I became a DD and gained the power to NMU, I started fixing this. Before that, Ove's contributor rejections blocked myself and many other non-DDs from effectively helping. Anyway, we've had recent threads on the continuing issues with strong package maintenance, and from what I can tell, there is no clear direction. The solution I'm pursuing is a liberal application of NMUs, and it seems to be working (albeit a bit slowly). Do you have ideas on other more effective solutions? Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=mmqh9wd7nsye8vzslrhux1f+wo-cjnkhqgjc2hzho4...@mail.gmail.com
Re: this bug .. bugs me
* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [120605 17:53]: I've read over this entire bug, and while there are clearly some hard problems and a lot of good work shown here, I'm seeing a concerning trend throughout it. I think the issues are now getting way better, with e.g. hillu uploading new wine versions to unstable. So while it bugs me as well, I don't think we need to discuss much about it for this package anymore as of now, as the right actions now take place. It might have taken too long to arrive there, but now we are there. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605170933.gv2...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:46:46PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: Not sure what to say other than when I became a DD and gained the power to NMU, I started fixing this. Before that, Ove's contributor rejections blocked myself and many other non-DDs from effectively helping. I would also be glad to hear opinions on whether regularly NMUing a package with a formally active maintainer is acceptable and whether it can be called a takeover. Not that I'm against a recent wine in the repos, quite the opposite. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:46:46PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: Not sure what to say other than when I became a DD and gained the power to NMU, I started fixing this. Before that, Ove's contributor rejections blocked myself and many other non-DDs from effectively helping. I would also be glad to hear opinions on whether regularly NMUing a package with a formally active maintainer is acceptable and whether it can be called a takeover. We are announcing our deferred uploads at least 10 days in advance (unless RC) with git commit references, so Ove can review and/or cancel/reject our work at any point. Thus, we haven't taken any of his power away and it really can't be viewed as a takeover. A few of us are choosing to do the necessary work and review while Ove doesn't have the time to do either himself. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=mo+kfpk9756z7qoe+cjvw+_kp176wqfb28yhctu0qq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: this bug .. bugs me
(No CC, please, I'm subscribed to -devel) Quoting Michael Gilbert (mgilb...@debian.org): Anyway, we've had recent threads on the continuing issues with strong package maintenance, and from what I can tell, there is no clear direction. The solution I'm pursuing is a liberal application of NMUs, and it seems to be working (albeit a bit slowly). Do you have ideas on other more effective solutions? You mean, besides completely hijacking the package? The last maintainer upload is dated 2010/05/23. So, from my POV, you (Michael) and Hilko Bengen seem to be the real package maintainers for wine. My suggestion: do a maintainer upload of 1.4 in unstable, unless it would affect some transition. And do it now. PS: I have no particular interest in wine, but, really, from what I see, this seems to be the only solution to bring more life to the package. And, of course, I have no authority (except my ignorance) for suggesting this. Just giving my advice..:) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: You mean, besides completely hijacking the package? The last maintainer upload is dated 2010/05/23. So, from my POV, you (Michael) and Hilko Bengen seem to be the real package maintainers for wine. My suggestion: do a maintainer upload of 1.4 in unstable, unless it would affect some transition. And do it now. I prefer cordiality. I would rather give Ove a fairly significant amount of time before pursuing any such change. And even then, I plan to defer the matter to the tech committee because I believe initiating a takeover on my own is a conflict of interest, and again I am one for cordiality. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=moyq6g5dsqbm81+9iodumhvh7e7nggngemsupk0bwf...@mail.gmail.com
Re: this bug .. bugs me
Andreas Barth wrote: * Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [120605 17:53]: I've read over this entire bug, and while there are clearly some hard problems and a lot of good work shown here, I'm seeing a concerning trend throughout it. I think the issues are now getting way better, with e.g. hillu uploading new wine versions to unstable. So while it bugs me as well, I don't think we need to discuss much about it for this package anymore as of now, as the right actions now take place. It might have taken too long to arrive there, but now we are there. I'm less concerned about wine specifically (though there's still some potential to release wheezy without the current 1.4 stable release, it seems). This bug seems to illustrate some general problems with prioritisation, which is why I brought it up on -devel. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:41:42PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: You mean, besides completely hijacking the package? The last maintainer upload is dated 2010/05/23. So, from my POV, you (Michael) and Hilko Bengen seem to be the real package maintainers for wine. My suggestion: do a maintainer upload of 1.4 in unstable, unless it would affect some transition. And do it now. I prefer cordiality. I would rather give Ove a fairly significant amount of time before pursuing any such change. And even then, I plan to defer the matter to the tech committee because I believe initiating a takeover on my own is a conflict of interest, and again I am one for cordiality. Please don't forget that the freeze is near. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On 05/06/12 16:52, Joey Hess wrote: This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Yes, pretty much. On the bright side, multiarch and a modern Wine version have both arrived (Wine 1.4 is admittedly only in experimental right now, but I hope it'll reach testing before we freeze), meaning this can finally work: archetype% dpkg --print-architecture amd64 archetype% wine --version wine-1.4 archetype% dpkg -s wine|grep Arch Architecture: i386 archetype% dpkg -s ia32-libs Package `ia32-libs' is not installed and no info is available. ... so, thanks to everyone whose work and perseverance made that possible! S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fce4e72.10...@debian.org
Re: [pkg-wine-party] Bug#585409: this bug .. bugs me
Hi Mike, On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:41:42PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: You mean, besides completely hijacking the package? The last maintainer upload is dated 2010/05/23. So, from my POV, you (Michael) and Hilko Bengen seem to be the real package maintainers for wine. My suggestion: do a maintainer upload of 1.4 in unstable, unless it would affect some transition. And do it now. I prefer cordiality. I would rather give Ove a fairly significant amount of time before pursuing any such change. And even then, I plan to defer the matter to the tech committee because I believe initiating a takeover on my own is a conflict of interest, and again I am one for cordiality. I don't know whether you'd noticed - you and I have been added to the Wine packaging team on Alioth, so technically our uploads now are no longer NMUs but team uploads! Regards, Stephen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120605181751.gc14...@sk2.org
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On 06/06/2012 01:41 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: And even then, I plan to defer the matter to the tech committee Please do this *now*. We've already discussed about Wine in this list few months ago, and the situation is still the same. At some point, we need to get things moving... Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fce6488.4050...@debian.org
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote: On 06/06/2012 01:41 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: And even then, I plan to defer the matter to the tech committee Please do this *now*. We've already discussed about Wine in this list few months ago, and the situation is still the same. At some point, we need to get things moving... Thomas They are members of pkg-wine already, so I think they can make changes that can improve the status but not limited to minimal changes for NMU. If Mike don't want to hijack at least for now, team upload is good enough. -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAMr=8w4j29og50jacldhwidg1be8lvozf5ukkcna0xkxkrf...@mail.gmail.com
Re: this bug .. bugs me
They are members of pkg-wine already, so I think they can make changes that can improve the status but not limited to minimal changes for NMU. If Mike don't want to hijack at least for now, team upload is good enough. Hopefully this will make some people happy: I pushed the first team upload of the 1.4 series to unstable about a half-an-hour ago :) Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=MPow3FdboOcfm7okJVz7eM3fZu-rOX16_ZZ--XBP=z...@mail.gmail.com
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:56:56AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Please do this *now*. We've already discussed about Wine in this
list few months ago, and the situation is still the same. At some
point, we need to get things moving...
Please don't spread incorrect information. The situation is by far not
the same (as in: it's *much* better now), and that is also thanks to the
discussion back then. -devel FTW, ... sometimes :-)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Mar 05 Jun 2012 17:12:31 Michael Gilbert escribió: They are members of pkg-wine already, so I think they can make changes that can improve the status but not limited to minimal changes for NMU. If Mike don't want to hijack at least for now, team upload is good enough. Hopefully this will make some people happy: I pushed the first team upload of the 1.4 series to unstable about a half-an-hour ago :) \o/ And the same goes for team-maintained packages in general :) -- 9: Que es el Explorador de Windows * El tipo que le roba las ideas a MacOs Damian Nadales http://mx.grulic.org.ar/lurker/message/20080307.141449.a70fb2fc.es.html Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
