Re: libNeXus mostly packaged
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Rudi Cilibrasi, Ph.D. wrote: Uploaders: Paul van Tilburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Is this correct? No, this was just my hope when I first made the package some time ago. But, Paul has no interest or use for the package. Since then, Paul has gotten overworked and also had to finish his thesis; I misunderstood the purpose of the library when I wrote that first description and think it would be better if a real user of the library wrote a description. Probably somebody involved in the nuclear field I guess. I can help with this stuff if the next maintainer wants me to. So this seems to be a missunderstanding of the Uploaders field. In general it is not necessary that a sponsor is mentioned in the debian/control file. He just signs and uploads the package. People mentioned in the Uploaders field are usually those who do some group maintenance i.e. work actively on package development. If I'm sponsoring packages I sometimes ask the maintainer for adding myself to the uploaders field because this ensures that I will find the package listed in http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] which enables me to have a quick overview about thoses packages I'm interested in - but this is more than just a simple sponsored upload. I am happy to do this if I am really the best person to, but I have never worked with a X-Ray data file yet successfully. I think Teemu might know better how to describe it. As I just sponsored other packages for Teemu I think this would be a reasonable cooperation. Just come back to me if nobody else will step up as sponsor. (I'm just sponsoring a certain amount of packages and would like to see this as a backup if finding an other sponsor would fail.) Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libNeXus mostly packaged
Hi Andreas, Ok, I have another question then. Bart has said that I need to reread the Uploaders description in the DPM. I made the guess that he wanted me to correct the field by eliminating it and asked for confirmation via email. Unfortunately, Bart neither confirmed nor denied this (mis?)understanding. Andreas, can you tell me your opinion on what the right setting of the Uploaders field is given the following situation? This discussion is regarding the libsvm package I just uploaded to mentors containing Paul van Tilburg in the Uploaders field. I've read the DPM text many times and I guess it is not clear to me. Let's try to clarify the language: Here's the quote from the DPM: -- 5.6.3 Uploaders List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the package, if any. If the package has other maintainers beside the one named in the Maintainer fieldhttp://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Maintainer, their names and email addresses should be listed here. The format is the same as that of the Maintainer tag, and multiple entries should be comma separated. Currently, this field is restricted to a single line of data. This is an optional field. -- So, Paul van Tilburg gave me advice when I made the very first versions of this package, and he reviewed it extensively and found many packaging problems and helped me fix them. Therefore, I consider him a co-maintainer. Given the description above, it seems entirely appropriate to list him in the Uploaders: field. Or have I misunderstood the paragraph above somehow or the idea of package maintanence? I thought it involved the finding and fixing of packaging problems and by that criteria certainly Paul has contributed in the past enough to be worth mentioning I should think. If not then I think we need to clarify the language in the DPM to express why not because I still cannot see it and I suspect others will be confused by this as well. Cheers, Rudi On 5/23/07, Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 22 May 2007, Rudi Cilibrasi, Ph.D. wrote: Uploaders: Paul van Tilburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Is this correct? No, this was just my hope when I first made the package some time ago. But, Paul has no interest or use for the package. Since then, Paul has gotten overworked and also had to finish his thesis; I misunderstood the purpose of the library when I wrote that first description and think it would be better if a real user of the library wrote a description. Probably somebody involved in the nuclear field I guess. I can help with this stuff if the next maintainer wants me to. So this seems to be a missunderstanding of the Uploaders field. In general it is not necessary that a sponsor is mentioned in the debian/control file. He just signs and uploads the package. People mentioned in the Uploaders field are usually those who do some group maintenance i.e. work actively on package development. If I'm sponsoring packages I sometimes ask the maintainer for adding myself to the uploaders field because this ensures that I will find the package listed in http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED] which enables me to have a quick overview about thoses packages I'm interested in - but this is more than just a simple sponsored upload. I am happy to do this if I am really the best person to, but I have never worked with a X-Ray data file yet successfully. I think Teemu might know better how to describe it. As I just sponsored other packages for Teemu I think this would be a reasonable cooperation. Just come back to me if nobody else will step up as sponsor. (I'm just sponsoring a certain amount of packages and would like to see this as a backup if finding an other sponsor would fail.) Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Re: libNeXus mostly packaged
On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 22:13 +0200, Rudi Cilibrasi, Ph.D. wrote: Hi Andreas, Ok, I have another question then. Bart has said that I need to reread the Uploaders description in the DPM. That was not related to libNeXus. I made the guess that he wanted me to correct the field by eliminating it It was not a suggestion to fix an error in any package. and asked for confirmation via email. That is your e-mail of 2007-05-23 at 22:01 +0200. Unfortunately, Bart neither confirmed nor denied this (mis?)understanding. I answered on 23 May 2007 22:37:08 +0200. Regards, Bart Martens signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: libNeXus mostly packaged
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Rudi Cilibrasi, Ph.D. wrote: Here's the quote from the DPM: -- 5.6.3 Uploaders List of the names and email addresses of co-maintainers of the package, if any. If the package has other maintainers beside the one named in the Maintainer fieldhttp://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Maintainer, their names and email addresses should be listed here. The format is the same as that of the Maintainer tag, and multiple entries should be comma separated. Currently, this field is restricted to a single line of data. This is an optional field. -- So, Paul van Tilburg gave me advice when I made the very first versions of this package, and he reviewed it extensively and found many packaging problems and helped me fix them. Therefore, I consider him a co-maintainer. Given the description above, it seems entirely appropriate to list him in the Uploaders: field. In principle it is and considering what you wrote above Paul definitely should gain some appreciation (in changelog, README.Debian, copyright or wherever you feel apropriate). Or have I misunderstood the paragraph above somehow or the idea of package maintanence? I thought it involved the finding and fixing of packaging problems and by that criteria certainly Paul has contributed in the past enough to be worth mentioning I should think. If not then I think we need to clarify the language in the DPM to express why not because I still cannot see it and I suspect others will be confused by this as well. In one of your previous mails you wrote that Paul does not have time / interest to work on this package any more. The Uploaders field should IMHO reflect the current status of people who work on this. It is a technical field that does not just list people that just deserve acknowledge. For this purpose we have free text formated files. So if Paul will continue to work on the package keep him as Uploader if not just leave the field out. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libNeXus mostly packaged
On 5/22/07, Rudi Cilibrasi, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Therefore, I suggest that one of the two nexus file format libraries undergo a renaming. I would also like to offer up my packages for adoption by somebody who would actually know how to test them better than I would. I have my packages available at [1] and I have already filed an ITP. I have a small interest in NeXus, the scattering data file format, which may grow larger in the future, or then again may not. If you really don't want to see the library ever again, I could at least host the packages and update upstream version occasionally etc., but as I'm not a DD, I can't upload to the archive without a sponsor. If there's a DD working in this field, then maybe he would be a better choice for a maintainer (mail CC:d to Carlo Segre :) [1] http://cilibrar.com/~cilibrar/projsup/nex4/ Best regards, Teemu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libNeXus mostly packaged
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Rudi Cilibrasi, Ph.D. wrote: Therefore, I suggest that one of the two nexus file format libraries undergo a renaming. I would also like to offer up my packages for adoption by somebody who would actually know how to test them better than I would. I have my packages available at [1] and I have already filed an ITP. Whenn reading the diff.gz at this site I learned that you might have found a sponsor for your work who is listed as Uploaders: Paul van Tilburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Is this correct? Moreover neither the description in debian/control nor the ITP #411053 do really reflect the double naming trouble and I think you should be more verbose to make clear what the package actually contains. Kind regards and thanks for packaging scientific relevant software Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
