[aur-requests] [PRQ#6009] Orphan Request for dpkg
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>
> > 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
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emails before this that it was automatically disowned because you left it out
of date for many months.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
> 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