[aur-requests] [PRQ#6009] Orphan Request for dpkg
ido [1] filed a orphan request for dpkg [2]: bertptrs disowned the package after taking it over from me without discussion, leaving the co-maintainer (lotia) as the only maintainer and making it impossible for me to take the package back over. Please orphan it again so that I can adopt it back. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/ido/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/dpkg/
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:57:51 +0000 (UTC) notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
ido [1] filed a orphan request for dpkg [2]:
bertptrs disowned the package after taking it over from me without discussion, leaving the co-maintainer (lotia) as the only maintainer and making it impossible for me to take the package back over. Please orphan it again so that I can adopt it back.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/ido/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/dpkg/
Are you actually going to maintain it this time?
I was maintaining it - it was following Debian stable (8/jessie currently), not unstable (sid), as I explained in the previous email to aur-requests. bertptrs is free to create his own package, and call it dpkg-unstable for example, if he wants the unstable version. Are you going to follow your own policies about notifying maintainers and giving them a chance to respond going forward? On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:57:51 +0000 (UTC) notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
ido [1] filed a orphan request for dpkg [2]:
bertptrs disowned the package after taking it over from me without discussion, leaving the co-maintainer (lotia) as the only maintainer and making it impossible for me to take the package back over. Please orphan it again so that I can adopt it back.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/ido/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/dpkg/
Are you actually going to maintain it this time?
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:17:40 -0400 Ido Rosen <ido@kernel.org> wrote:
I was maintaining it - it was following Debian stable (8/jessie currently), not unstable (sid), as I explained in the previous email to aur-requests. bertptrs is free to create his own package, and call it dpkg-unstable for example, if he wants the unstable version.
Are you going to follow your own policies about notifying maintainers and giving them a chance to respond going forward?
As far as I can tell, you've been maintaining nothing. You put things up on github then tell people to submit pull requests if they want even an update. That's not maintaining a package, that's you simply wanting control. As I already said in another reply, the problem is that the package was marked out of date for over 7 months. In those cases, the package is simply orphaned automatically, as it's obvious the maintainer isn't doing anything. The git log verifies this. 1.18.9 is the latest upstream stable release of dpkg. Upstream stable release always go into Debian Unstable, that's why Debian's "Stable" releases are always so far out of date.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:17:40 -0400 Ido Rosen <ido@kernel.org> wrote:
I was maintaining it - it was following Debian stable (8/jessie currently), not unstable (sid), as I explained in the previous email to aur-requests. bertptrs is free to create his own package, and call it dpkg-unstable for example, if he wants the unstable version.
Are you going to follow your own policies about notifying maintainers and giving them a chance to respond going forward?
As far as I can tell, you've been maintaining nothing. You put things up on github then tell people to submit pull requests if they want even an update. That's not maintaining a package, that's you simply wanting control.
I wish you wouldn't resort to responding ad hominem, especially when you're in the wrong. This month so far I've updated openonload and a couple of other packages, created the airflow and airflow-git packages, etc. and I've been responsive to email (clearly since I am responding to events same-day on a Sunday afternoon), please get your facts straight. ;-) Not even an hour passed before the package was orphaned and taken over - there was no attempt to contact me, there was no discussion... I'm clearly alive and responsive as I updated several other packages just a few days earlier. I'm donating my time and energy to ArchLinux because I want to help out and because it is useful, I don't understand your comment about wanting control. (I made lotia a co-maintainer originally, I don't care if you add me as a maintainer or a co-maintainer, I just need it to undo the damage that was done. For example, if bertptrs had asked, or if there were any notice whatsoever, I'd have happily made him a co-maintainer or disowned the package if he had agreed to keep it tracking stable and not unstable.) As I already said in another reply, the problem is that the package was
marked out of date for over 7 months. In those cases, the package is simply orphaned automatically, as it's obvious the maintainer isn't doing anything. The git log verifies this.
1.18.9 is the latest upstream stable release of dpkg. Upstream stable
release always go into Debian Unstable, that's why Debian's "Stable" releases are always so far out of date.
dpkg is used to install packages from Debian-based distributions outside of pacman. As I said in another reply, there is a reason that I had dpkg following the Debian stable branch and not the Debian unstable branch, they have to do with primarily using dpkg to track Debian stable packages (rather than Debian unstable ones, which tend to correspond to Arch packages). There are good reasons for having both versions around, and I'd encourage you or bertptrs to create a new package that tracks the unstable branch if you want. I think there used to also be a dpkg-ubuntu, which tracks yet another branch, but it's gone now.
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 13:42:56 -0400 Ido Rosen <ido@kernel.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:17:40 -0400 Ido Rosen <ido@kernel.org> wrote:
I was maintaining it - it was following Debian stable (8/jessie currently), not unstable (sid), as I explained in the previous email to aur-requests. bertptrs is free to create his own package, and call it dpkg-unstable for example, if he wants the unstable version.
Are you going to follow your own policies about notifying maintainers and giving them a chance to respond going forward?
As far as I can tell, you've been maintaining nothing. You put things up on github then tell people to submit pull requests if they want even an update. That's not maintaining a package, that's you simply wanting control.
I wish you wouldn't resort to responding ad hominem, especially when you're in the wrong. This month so far I've updated openonload and a couple of other packages, created the airflow and airflow-git packages, etc. and I've been responsive to email (clearly since I am responding to events same-day on a Sunday afternoon), please get your facts straight. ;-)
The fact that you've updated a package does not negate the point here. If you don't have time to update other packages and require someone else to do the work, disown the package.
Not even an hour passed before the package was orphaned and taken over - there was no attempt to contact me, there was no discussion... I'm clearly alive and responsive as I updated several other packages just a few days earlier.
Read the entire email before responding. I've now explained in two separate emails before this that it was automatically disowned because you left it out of date for many months.
I'm donating my time and energy to ArchLinux because I want to help out and because it is useful, I don't understand your comment about wanting control. (I made lotia a co-maintainer originally, I don't care if you add me as a maintainer or a co-maintainer, I just need it to undo the damage that was done. For example, if bertptrs had asked, or if there were any notice whatsoever, I'd have happily made him a co-maintainer or disowned the package if he had agreed to keep it tracking stable and not unstable.)
As I already said in another reply, the problem is that the package was
marked out of date for over 7 months. In those cases, the package is simply orphaned automatically, as it's obvious the maintainer isn't doing anything. The git log verifies this.
1.18.9 is the latest upstream stable release of dpkg. Upstream stable
release always go into Debian Unstable, that's why Debian's "Stable" releases are always so far out of date.
dpkg is used to install packages from Debian-based distributions outside of pacman. As I said in another reply, there is a reason that I had dpkg following the Debian stable branch and not the Debian unstable branch, they have to do with primarily using dpkg to track Debian stable packages (rather than Debian unstable ones, which tend to correspond to Arch packages). There are good reasons for having both versions around, and I'd encourage you or bertptrs to create a new package that tracks the unstable branch if you want. I think there used to also be a dpkg-ubuntu, which tracks yet another branch, but it's gone now.
Sounds more like there should be a dpkg-old. Arch standards are pretty simple, the "dpkg" package should be the latest upstream stable release.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia@archlinux.info> wrote:
As far as I can tell, you've been maintaining nothing. You put things
up on
github then tell people to submit pull requests if they want even an update. That's not maintaining a package, that's you simply wanting control.
I wish you wouldn't resort to responding ad hominem, especially when you're in the wrong. This month so far I've updated openonload and a couple of other packages, created the airflow and airflow-git packages, etc. and I've been responsive to email (clearly since I am responding to events same-day on a Sunday afternoon), please get your facts straight. ;-)
The fact that you've updated a package does not negate the point here. If you don't have time to update other packages and require someone else to do the work, disown the package.
It does negate your accusation that I'm maintaining nothing, which is what I was responding to. FYI, looking at the git logs of my local git repo and the AUR4 git repo, it looks like I had committed 1.17.27 locally but not pushed it to AUR. (AUR had 1.17.25.) Since AUR4 introduced comaintainers, I've switched to making people co-maintainers instead of outright disowning. That makes the transition smoother - if I disown the package, the comaintainer becomes the maintainer, and there is a transition period to make sure the new maintainer remains active. Maybe I shouldn't bother though, it seems co-maintainership is buggy in some edge cases ( https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50079).
Sounds more like there should be a dpkg-old. Arch standards are pretty simple, the "dpkg" package should be the latest upstream stable release.
Agreed. Maybe a name with less negative connotation, like "dpkg-jessie". Done.
Request #6009 has been accepted by Dragonlord [1]: Request accepted. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Dragonlord/
participants (3)
-
Doug Newgard
-
Ido Rosen
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org