[aur-requests] [PRQ#6009] Orphan Request for dpkg

Doug Newgard scimmia at archlinux.info
Sun Jul 17 18:03:43 UTC 2016

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 13:42:56 -0400
Ido Rosen <ido at kernel.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Doug Newgard <scimmia at archlinux.info>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:17:40 -0400
> > Ido Rosen <ido at 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emails before this that it was automatically disowned because you left it out
of date for many months.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.

More information about the aur-requests mailing list