Debian Science taking over cimg-dev?

[Andreas Tille-5]

Hi,

I realised that cimg-dev package was not updated since
nearly two days.  Two bugs requesting an update to
more recent upstream version (#399846, #497672) one
of them is even blocking an other package were ignored.

I would volunteer to upgrade to new upstream version,
but I would not really like to join just another team.
Is there any problem in moving this package to
Debian Science team where I'm lurking anyway?

Kind regards

      Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Charles Plessy-12]

Le Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:32:43PM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> I realised that cimg-dev package was not updated since
> nearly two days.  Two bugs requesting an update to
> more recent upstream version (#399846, #497672) one
> of them is even blocking an other package were ignored.
>
> I would volunteer to upgrade to new upstream version,

Hi Andreas,

An upgrade is even waiting on mentors.debian.org:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/01/msg00119.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/01/msg00271.html

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Cyril Brulebois-4]

Andreas Tille <andreas@...> (29/05/2009):
> I realised that cimg-dev package was not updated since nearly two
> days.

OH MY! :D

Mraw,
KiBi.

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Freitag, den 29.05.2009, 23:32 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:

> I realised that cimg-dev package was not updated since
> nearly two days.  Two bugs requesting an update to
> more recent upstream version (#399846, #497672) one
> of them is even blocking an other package were ignored.

The 4 bugs of cimg-dev can be easily fixed and I already have the fixed
package locally, but did not yet commit. The build hangs in some point
(i386) and I did not yet have the time to figure out why.

If it really hurts you that much, I can commit it today or tomorrow, so
you can test it.

> I would volunteer to upgrade to new upstream version,
> but I would not really like to join just another team.
> Is there any problem in moving this package to
> Debian Science team where I'm lurking anyway?

What about starting in the usual way doing an NMU? I can't speak for the
pkg-scicomp team, but a hijack in this situation IMHO isn't polite.

Regards, Daniel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:54:03PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> The 4 bugs of cimg-dev can be easily fixed and I already have the fixed
> package locally, but did not yet commit. The build hangs in some point
> (i386) and I did not yet have the time to figure out why.
>
> If it really hurts you that much, I can commit it today or tomorrow, so
> you can test it.

That would be nice.

> > I would volunteer to upgrade to new upstream version,
> > but I would not really like to join just another team.
> > Is there any problem in moving this package to
> > Debian Science team where I'm lurking anyway?
>
> What about starting in the usual way doing an NMU? I can't speak for the
> pkg-scicomp team, but a hijack in this situation IMHO isn't polite.

Well, hijacking is in no situation polite.  That's why I was asking
whether there is any problem if I might take over.  I might NMU if
the former maintainers prefer this (and thus confirm that they are
continuosely interested in this package).

Kind regards

       Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Sonntag, den 31.05.2009, 15:07 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:54:03PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > The 4 bugs of cimg-dev can be easily fixed and I already have the fixed
> > package locally, but did not yet commit. The build hangs in some point
> > (i386) and I did not yet have the time to figure out why.
> >
> > If it really hurts you that much, I can commit it today or tomorrow, so
> > you can test it.
>
> That would be nice.

Committed yesterday. I cannot upload the package, but you can, if you
need it. IIRC the build hung on an i386 system when I tested 1.2.9. That
might need some investigation.

Regards, Daniel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Committed yesterday. I cannot upload the package, but you can, if you
> need it. IIRC the build hung on an i386 system when I tested 1.2.9. That
> might need some investigation.

I just compiled

   http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cimg/cimg_1.2.9-0.1.dsc

in a sid chroot successfully.

I'll check your commit and the NMU on mentors.  I also plan to
update to 1.3.1 which was just release upstream.  Then I'll ping
the previous uploaders once more and depending on their repsonse
I'll proceed with a (perhaps delayed) upload.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Sonntag, den 31.05.2009, 16:37 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:

> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 03:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > Committed yesterday. I cannot upload the package, but you can, if you
> > need it. IIRC the build hung on an i386 system when I tested 1.2.9. That
> > might need some investigation.
>
> I just compiled
>
>    http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/c/cimg/cimg_1.2.9-0.1.dsc
>
> in a sid chroot successfully.
>
> I'll check your commit and the NMU on mentors. I also plan to
> update to 1.3.1 which was just release upstream.

They didn't release a tarball this time. So the watch file didn't catch
it. watch fixed and changelog adjusted (further changed to NMU).

The files are ready in the SVN.

> Then I'll ping
> the previous uploaders once more and depending on their repsonse
> I'll proceed with a (perhaps delayed) upload.

Please do so.

Regards, Daniel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:54:03PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> The 4 bugs of cimg-dev can be easily fixed and I already have the fixed
> package locally, but did not yet commit. The build hangs in some point
> (i386) and I did not yet have the time to figure out why.

After waiting now for more than 4 monthes of a reaction of the maintainers
I really lose my nerve and think the time for taking over the package is
right.

> If it really hurts you that much, I can commit it today or tomorrow, so
> you can test it.

And yes - it really hurds me if a package which is relevant for projects
I'm working on are unmaintained.  Considering the fact that there is
some agreement to merge the two repositories of Debian Science and
Pkg-Scicomp[1] I would vote for moving to Debian Science.
 
> What about starting in the usual way doing an NMU? I can't speak for the
> pkg-scicomp team, but a hijack in this situation IMHO isn't polite.

Well, it is also not polite to our users to let a package rot for more
then two years and ignoring patches for 4 monthes - so IMHO the hijack
makes sense.

At the time of your mail (May 2009) your patch worked but in the mean
time something might have changed and I get a FTBFS problem:

g++ -o CImg_demo CImg_demo.cpp -I.. -Wall -W -ansi -lm -lpthread -O3 -ffast-math -fno-tree-pre -Dcimg_use_vt100 -I/usr/X11R6/include -Dcimg_use_xshm -Dcimg_use_xrandr -Dcimg_use_tiff -Dcimg_use_png -Dcimg_use_jpeg -Dcimg_use_zlib -Dcimg_use_magick -I/usr/include/ImageMagick -g -O2 -Wall -W -pthread -Dcimg_use_fftw3 -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lpthread -lX11 -lXext -lXrandr -ltiff -lpng -lz -ljpeg -lz -L/usr/lib -L/usr/lib/X11 -lfreetype -lz -L/usr/lib -lMagick++ -lMagickWand -lMagickCore -llcms -ltiff -lfreetype -ljpeg -llqr-1 -lglib-2.0 -lfontconfig -lXext -lSM -lICE -lX11 -lXt -lbz2 -lz -lm -lgomp -lpthread -lltdl -lfftw3
In file included from CImg_demo.cpp:48:
../CImg.h: In member function 'const cimg_library::CImg<T>& cimg_library::CImg<T>::save_magick(const char*, unsigned int) const':
../CImg.h:32325: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
../CImg.h:32331: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
../CImg.h:32332: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
../CImg.h:32338: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
../CImg.h:32339: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
../CImg.h:32340: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
...

Does anybody have a simple solution for this problem?  If yes, I would
volunteer to apply this and care finally for an upload.  If not I'd do
some research myself.

Kind regards and thanks to Daniel for his intermediate work on cimg

   Andreas.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2009/10/msg00014.html 

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Don Armstrong]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Andreas Tille wrote:

> At the time of your mail (May 2009) your patch worked but in the
> mean time something might have changed and I get a FTBFS problem:
>
> g++ -o CImg_demo CImg_demo.cpp -I.. -Wall -W -ansi -lm -lpthread -O3 -ffast-math -fno-tree-pre -Dcimg_use_vt100 -I/usr/X11R6/include -Dcimg_use_xshm -Dcimg_use_xrandr -Dcimg_use_tiff -Dcimg_use_png -Dcimg_use_jpeg -Dcimg_use_zlib -Dcimg_use_magick -I/usr/include/ImageMagick -g -O2 -Wall -W -pthread -Dcimg_use_fftw3 -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lpthread -lX11 -lXext -lXrandr -ltiff -lpng -lz -ljpeg -lz -L/usr/lib -L/usr/lib/X11 -lfreetype -lz -L/usr/lib -lMagick++ -lMagickWand -lMagickCore -llcms -ltiff -lfreetype -ljpeg -llqr-1 -lglib-2.0 -lfontconfig -lXext -lSM -lICE -lX11 -lXt -lbz2 -lz -lm -lgomp -lpthread -lltdl -lfftw3
> In file included from CImg_demo.cpp:48:
> ../CImg.h: In member function 'const cimg_library::CImg<T>& cimg_library::CImg<T>::save_magick(const char*, unsigned int) const':
> ../CImg.h:32325: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
> ../CImg.h:32331: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
> ../CImg.h:32332: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
> ../CImg.h:32338: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
> ../CImg.h:32339: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
> ../CImg.h:32340: error: 'MagickLib' has not been declared
> ...
>
> Does anybody have a simple solution for this problem?

MagickLib has been removed, and is now MagickWand and MagickCore et
al. so this would have to be fixed.


Don Armstrong

--
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
 -- Bill Vaughan

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Freitag, den 09.10.2009, 22:35 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:54:03PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> >
> > The 4 bugs of cimg-dev can be easily fixed and I already have the fixed
> > package locally, but did not yet commit. The build hangs in some point
> > (i386) and I did not yet have the time to figure out why.
>
> After waiting now for more than 4 monthes of a reaction of the maintainers
> I really lose my nerve and think the time for taking over the package is
> right.

So you had "more than 4 months" to send me a reminder or to upload an
NMU.

> > If it really hurts you that much, I can commit it today or tomorrow, so
> > you can test it.
>
> And yes - it really hurds me if a package which is relevant for projects
> I'm working on are unmaintained.

So you did not create the NMU although you could have done that for
"more than 4 months" now. Ah ... nope, I don't understand that.

JFTR: Sending a fup to a 4 months old discussion without CCing the
person you cite and you obviously want to address. <ironic>*Daumen hoch*
Well done!</ironic>

Daniel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:06:55AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > After waiting now for more than 4 monthes of a reaction of the maintainers
> > I really lose my nerve and think the time for taking over the package is
> > right.
>
> So you had "more than 4 months" to send me a reminder or to upload an
> NMU.

I'm sorry, I did not intended to NMU and I never told this.  I waitet
for confirmation to take over the package, which IMHO should give the
maintainers some time to react.
 
> > And yes - it really hurds me if a package which is relevant for projects
> > I'm working on are unmaintained.
>
> So you did not create the NMU although you could have done that for
> "more than 4 months" now. Ah ... nope, I don't understand that.

I have no idea what you want to tell me.  You prepared an NMU in SVN
and accuses me to not have uploaded your work?

> JFTR: Sending a fup to a 4 months old discussion without CCing the
> person you cite and you obviously want to address.

I have seen no need to CC people who are subscribed to the list and you
obviosely have read the mail.

> <ironic>*Daumen hoch*
> Well done!</ironic>

Thanks anyway

    Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Samstag, den 10.10.2009, 13:44 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:06:55AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > > After waiting now for more than 4 monthes of a reaction of the maintainers
> > > I really lose my nerve and think the time for taking over the package is
> > > right.
> >
> > So you had "more than 4 months" to send me a reminder or to upload an
> > NMU.
>
> I'm sorry, I did not intended to NMU and I never told this.

No, we all now that you prefer hijacks into debian-science over NMUs,
the common and correct behaviour (even to increase pressure on the
maintainer(s) of a package).

> I waitet
> for confirmation to take over the package, which IMHO should give the
> maintainers some time to react.

We have NMU queues for this type of situation. It would show a much
better light on your intentions, if you would use them instead to try to
grab more and more packages into your hands. I wonder if you really have
the necessary time to handle them.
 
> > > And yes - it really hurds me if a package which is relevant for projects
> > > I'm working on are unmaintained.
> >
> > So you did not create the NMU although you could have done that for
> > "more than 4 months" now. Ah ... nope, I don't understand that.
>
> I have no idea what you want to tell me.  You prepared an NMU in SVN

JFTR: I don't have upload rights for cimg. So checking the build
(problem) and/or offering to sponsor the upload would have shown your
*serious" interest in this package. You did neither of both!

> and accuses me to not have uploaded your work?

You said: "that it hurts you so much". So again: Why then you didn't
make or upload an NMU (this is the thing I already suggested to you
"more than 4 months ago")? Why do you insist in hijacking a package,
where the much easier and common solution to fix long outstanding bugs
is to prepare/upload an NMU? This would have even shown, that you care
about the package. Instead you didn't care about it nor touch it nor did
you show any other serious sign, that you will really care about this
package in the future. Instead you insist in hijacking. Do you know what
a reaction this would provoce on d-devel or d-mentors for a
newbie-packager? Everybody would say: First show that you can maintain
this package, then ask for taking it over.

> > JFTR: Sending a fup to a 4 months old discussion without CCing the
> > person you cite and you obviously want to address.
>
> I have seen no need to CC people who are subscribed to the list and you
> obviosely have read the mail.

This statement is so silly and much below your level. You should really
re-think your behaviour. I saw this, because on the high activity to
annect some more packages (I've chosen the word to my impressions).

PS: How does incorporating packages into debian-science increase the
necessary manpower to maintain them? As far as I see, you and
debian-science have enough open bugs and lack behind the latest upstream
release in a lot of packages? I would really be interested in the
answer.

Daniel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:23:46PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> No, we all now that you prefer hijacks into debian-science over NMUs,

If you define a serious offer of group maintenance as hijack, then yes.

> the common and correct behaviour (even to increase pressure on the
> maintainer(s) of a package).

The maintainer were not pressed by long standing bugs and you call the
offer for group maintenance increased pressure?
 
> > I waitet
> > for confirmation to take over the package, which IMHO should give the
> > maintainers some time to react.
>
> We have NMU queues for this type of situation.

No.  We have NMU queues for situations were maintainers are temporary
absent but actually intend to continue maintenance.  IMHO the situation
was different in the case of cimg.

> It would show a much
> better light on your intentions, if you would use them instead to try to
> grab more and more packages into your hands. I wonder if you really have
> the necessary time to handle them.

Reading this lets me wonder whether you are really understanding my
intention.  I'm not Debian Science in person.  I try to work on a strong
team.  If you wonder whether I can handle such a lot of packages I can
answer: no, I can't and I do not intend to.  But I spended some time in
QA tools for Blends which enabled me to have a lot of packages in focus
and I can step in where work is needed.  You might like to check out my
commits in Debian Med last month.  Cimg-dev is in the focus of Debian
Med and if I would be able to commit some time to this package if it
needs work I would do if I would not be forced to join another team.
This is what would spoil my time scale.

> > I have no idea what you want to tell me.  You prepared an NMU in SVN
>
> JFTR: I don't have upload rights for cimg. So checking the build
> (problem) and/or offering to sponsor the upload would have shown your
> *serious" interest in this package. You did neither of both!

Well, I checked the build and it builded fine - so I at least did one of
both - perhaps this makes me half-serious?  I do not intend to work on a
lot of NMUs if a package seems orphaned.  If a maintainer is unable to
maintain a package he should orphan the package and not force his fellow
maintainers to fix his problem with NMUs. This is a workaround which I
do not like.  Others had the chance as well and they did neither.  If
there would have been an interest of the maintainers they could have
just uploaded your fixed package.
 
> > and accuses me to not have uploaded your work?
>
> You said: "that it hurts you so much". So again: Why then you didn't
> make or upload an NMU (this is the thing I already suggested to you
> "more than 4 months ago")? Why do you insist in hijacking a package,
> where the much easier and common solution to fix long outstanding bugs
> is to prepare/upload an NMU?

That's easy: I'm not seeking for an easy solution which is rather a
workaround but a real solution.  Continous NMUs are no solution - at
least I not for me.  

> This would have even shown, that you care
> about the package. Instead you didn't care about it nor touch

I have no commit permissions in pkg-scicomp - so I was unable to touch
it.

> it nor did
> you show any other serious sign, that you will really care about this
> package in the future. Instead you insist in hijacking. Do you know what
> a reaction this would provoce on d-devel or d-mentors for a
> newbie-packager? Everybody would say: First show that you can maintain
> this package, then ask for taking it over.

Your arguing is a bit strange.  Imagine I would ask pkg-scicomp to enable
me commit permissions and I would have adde myself as Uploader everything
would be fine, right.  So please calm down.  I do not see the profit
neither for cimg nor for the involved groups if we start a flame about
right or wrong behaviour in this case.  As long as non of the maintainers
steps in into this discussion I see a clear prove that their interest is
quite low and moving the package to a different team is not dramatic for
them.
 
> PS: How does incorporating packages into debian-science increase the
> necessary manpower to maintain them?

Given the fact that we had quite a decrease of lacking behind upstream
and bug count on Debian Med in the last month I would try to have a look
at Debian Science as well what can be done.  I admit that my focus is on
Debian Med in the first place.  I have no idea why you seem to address
me in person as Debian Science.  I try to pass good experiences to other
groups.  I realised that a split of maintainer groups is not optimal and
I try to express this here.

> As far as I see, you and debian-science
> have enough open bugs and lack behind the latest upstream
> release in a lot of packages?

I'm not fully clear whom you actually addressing by "you and
debian-science" but in Debian Med we made quite a progress and people
there will probably agree that it is to some extend because of my work
on this.  BTW, I did not intended to "hijack" cimg-dev to Debian Med
even if it would be in our interest.  I would like to keep it under
a more general umbrella - but I would like to have more influence than
a series of NMUs.

> I would really be interested in the answer.

If your tone stays that agressive not any more but for this time yes.

Kind regards

     Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Daniel Leidert]

Am Samstag, den 10.10.2009, 17:44 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 03:23:46PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> >
> > No, we all now that you prefer hijacks into debian-science over NMUs,
>
> If you define a serious offer of group maintenance as hijack, then yes.

"Taking over" is not an "offer of group maintenance". These both are
excluding: Either forcing the maintainers to join debian-science (JFTR:
the opposite is obviously not ok for you) or letting the package down.

> > the common and correct behaviour (even to increase pressure on the
> > maintainer(s) of a package).
>
> The maintainer were not pressed by long standing bugs and you call the
> offer for group maintenance increased pressure?

You said: "give the maintainers some time to react", which in fact
points to some action to increase pressure on the maintainesr to care
about the package. q.e.d.

> > > I waitet
> > > for confirmation to take over the package, which IMHO should give the
> > > maintainers some time to react.
> >
> > We have NMU queues for this type of situation.
>
> No.

Yes.

> We have NMU queues for situations were maintainers are temporary
> absent but actually intend to continue maintenance.  IMHO the situation
> was different in the case of cimg.

It was not. What you tried is not the common way. Even packages which
seem unmaintained for more then 2 or 3 years receive NMUs. And more
different to those: in this case you had someone who already cared about
the bugs: me. You are right with one point: It was different. It would
have required just a check and an upload of the NMU.

> > It would show a much
> > better light on your intentions, if you would use them instead to try to
> > grab more and more packages into your hands. I wonder if you really have
> > the necessary time to handle them.
>
> Reading this lets me wonder whether you are really understanding my
> intention.  I'm not Debian Science in person.  I try to work on a strong
> team.

There is no QA-team-like structure in debian-science to switch between
hot-spot-packages (to decrease their bug count, to prepare the latest
upstream version, to sort bugs and forward them, ...). So how should
pkg-scicomp or cimg benefit here? Can you disprove me?

[..]
> Cimg-dev is in the focus of Debian
> Med and if I would be able to commit some time to this package if it
> needs work I would do if I would not be forced to join another team.

That is simply not an argument: NMUing doesn't require any commit access
except to the Debian archive. This is, why Vcs-Svn should not contain
the 'svn+ssh' scheme.

> This is what would spoil my time scale.
>
> > > I have no idea what you want to tell me.  You prepared an NMU in SVN
> >
> > JFTR: I don't have upload rights for cimg. So checking the build
> > (problem) and/or offering to sponsor the upload would have shown your
> > *serious" interest in this package. You did neither of both!
>
> Well, I checked the build and it builded fine - so I at least did one of
> both - perhaps this makes me half-serious?

Then: Why didn't you adapt the work and uploaded it? Why didn't you
offer to sponsor the upload? Why didn't you send a reminder in >4
months?

> I do not intend to work on a
> lot of NMUs if a package seems orphaned.

You had the chance to ask Sam or Christophe (both are not MIA to my
knowledge) to orphan it. You even had the chance to consolidate your
position with one or two NMUs. You did nothing.

[..]

> > > and accuses me to not have uploaded your work?
> >
> > You said: "that it hurts you so much". So again: Why then you didn't
> > make or upload an NMU (this is the thing I already suggested to you
> > "more than 4 months ago")? Why do you insist in hijacking a package,
> > where the much easier and common solution to fix long outstanding bugs
> > is to prepare/upload an NMU?
>
> That's easy: I'm not seeking for an easy solution which is rather a
> workaround but a real solution.  Continous NMUs are no solution - at
> least I not for me.

Nobody was talking about "continous NMUs". At the time of writing we
were talking about the same 4 open bug reports which are there now. So
exactly one would have been enough. And during this time you could have
asked for O/ITA cimg too.

[..]
> > This would have even shown, that you care
> > about the package. Instead you didn't care about it nor touch
>
> I have no commit permissions in pkg-scicomp - so I was unable to touch
> it.

That is simply not an argument. I already told you somewhere above. NMUs
don't require commit access here. It's up to the maintainer to
incorporate your NMU into the subversion tree if he wants to do this.

You are further emphasizing team maintenance: NMUs are the mother and
the father of the team maintenance effort: packages are maintained by
the whole group of DDs (and by sponsoring uploads also by all non-DDs).

[..]
> I do not see the profit
> neither for cimg nor for the involved groups if we start a flame about
> right or wrong behaviour in this case.

I disagree. (a) You could have solved the whole issue several months ago
yourself. (b) Christopher answered you recently with "I claim that we
have done a great job at packaging and disseminating scientific
computing software.". You should ask yourself, why your mail implies the
opposite, so he has to say that? You did the same with several other
groups in the past, including debichem. I already said it in the past
and I repeat it: Your behaviour is rude and insulting to everybody, who
has worked to give scientific software in Debian the significance it
has.

[..]
> > I would really be interested in the answer.
>
> If your tone stays that agressive not any more but for this time yes.

That's interesting. Maybe some reasons you should think about:

- you re-opened a >4 months old discussion with me without CCing me
- you obviously construct arguments (against NMUs)
- you make claims about the quality of debian-science and other of your
groups I see clearly disproved

Debian has a very simple problem: The count of source packages increased
by around or even more than 20% in less than 1 year (from <25000 to
>30000). This creates issues in lacking manpower. And you don't solve
them, but you blame others to do a bad job. That's simply not ok [1].
You failed in creating a team, who can address this issue. That's my
point of view. If you can proove me wrong, don't hesitate to do so.

[1] And in the case of cimg I've uploaded the local fixes as promised. I
might have missde to care about the build issue - I cannot remember ...
too much happened with a lot of success for several other software
packages in Debian - but <ou did not care enough to upload the NMU or
care in any way about cimg. It simply appeared on your radar again
recently and now you again blame others.

Daniel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Charles Plessy-12]

Le Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 07:03:41PM +0200, Daniel Leidert a écrit :
> excluding: Either forcing the maintainers to join debian-science (JFTR:
> the opposite is obviously not ok for you) or letting the package down.

Friends,

ACLs can be used to grant reciprocal commit permissions between pkg-scicomp and
debian-science.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Andreas Tille-5]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 08:39:48AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> ACLs can be used to grant reciprocal commit permissions between pkg-scicomp and
> debian-science.

Thanks for this hint. Could you give a pointer how to implement this to make it
as easy as possible for the project admins (I do not have admin permissions in
one of the projects in question).

Kind regards

     Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Charles Plessy-12]

Le Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 10:58:17PM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 08:39:48AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > ACLs can be used to grant reciprocal commit permissions between pkg-scicomp and
> > debian-science.
>
> Thanks for this hint. Could you give a pointer how to implement this to make it
> as easy as possible for the project admins (I do not have admin permissions in
> one of the projects in question).

Sure : http://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/FAQ#HowdoIgivewritepermissionoutsidemyAliothproject.3F

Basically, only Alioth admins can set ACLs, so it is as easy as asking them
(with the agreement of the project admins of course).

Have a nice day,

--
Charles


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...