quote:

---

> Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.

---

quote:

---

> ghemical gnews gnome-pim gnu-smalltalk gnumach gnumach1 gnuyahoo gpcl
> gspy gtkam guile-oops gwydion-dylan

---

quote:

---

> nhc98

---

quote:

---

> Hi,
>
> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
> are not in testing are:
>
> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)

---

quote:

---

> kernel-image-2.2.25-mac-udeb

---

quote:

---

> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
> are not in testing are:
>
> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)

---

quote:

---

> w3-el

---

quote:

---

>
> w3-el was supposed to be removed from unstable. Anyone know why
> it's still showing up in the Sources.gz for unstable?

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> You should really have looked through the list before spamming such a
> huge amount of people.
>
>
> This one is made to make d-i possible for m68k. However, as m68k doesn't
> have a usable debian-installer yet (which I'm sure you know), this can't
> go in yet.

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I maintain gnu-smalltalk, but noone seems interested in sponsoring an
> upload for me. My regular sponsor has not been able to do an upload in
> ages. Requests for a new sponsor have gone unanswered.
>
> There is interest in the package... I've been contacted by several
> people regarding the status of this package, but unfortunately none of
> them were DDs.
>
> If anyone *is* interested in doing an upload, please contact me for
> information.
>
> -- Brett

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> Sigh. No wonder people dislike you.
>
>
> No, if you going to send out this kind of email you need to look more
> deeply at the problem. swh-plugins requires fftw to work. That doesn't
> because GCC 3.3.3 ICEs on m68k. The fix is in gcc 3.3.4 but you, no
> doubt, already did the work to discover this rather than wasting my
> time.

---

quote:

---

> Feel free to orphan/nmu gcc, orphan/nmu fftw3 and then nmu (but not
> orphan) swh-plugins. I mean, you _did_ check to see that the package in

---

quote:

---

> testing versus the package in unstable has significant functionality
> differences to warrant all this, right?

---

quote:

---

> It is nice that you did take the time to look at this problem but I
> think, in future, you'll have a greater degree of success if you email
> people seperately and then do things in public if they don't respond.

---

quote:

---

> Anand

---

quote:

---

> Don't be too hard on these; getting them compiled on all arches has
> been next to impossible for quite a while. :-/ Frankly, the
> practical advice I'd give is to stop making these Architecture: all.
> :-(

---

quote:

---

> Don't include packages with "Keep this out of testing" RC bugs.

---

quote:

---

> Don't be too hard on these; people are often unaware of their dependency
> chains; and also some packages have been stuck in four or more different
> dependency chains, which can be a real pain in the neck.

---

quote:

---

> Minus the situations I commented on above.
>
> <snip>
> I strongly advise starting by only orphaning those packages with RC bugs open
> longer than a week (and without "keep this out of testing" bugs). Please
> give the others a break for now, as some of them may actually be maintained,
> and at any rate they deserve closer scrutiny.

---

quote:

---

> You'll have *plenty* to orphan for quite a while if you just do these, which
> are more definitely unmaintained than the others.
>
> --Nathanael

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:24:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> How much faster could Debian releases occur if fewer archs. were
> supported?

---

quote:

---

> Maybe we could make a list of packages that should be autobuild in
> contrib/non-free and distribute that to the buildds.

---

quote:

---

> Or rather make a list of packages not to be build and allow
> contrib/non-free in general, since the buildds have that mechanism
> already.

---

quote:

---

> If you maintain one of thses packages then tell me (including the
> names of packages you maintain) during the next week. If you are using
> one of these packages and could maintain (or NMU some fixes) you
> should contact the maintainer and me to work things out. If I hear
> nothing about a package soon I will start with the oldest and do a few
> packages every day.
>

---

quote:

---

> netjuke

---

quote:

---

> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
>
> You didn't have to CC all 150 DDs for this.

---

quote:

---

>
> Why can't that go into sarge? Ok it wouldn't be much use there now but
> nothing prevents it from being there. And when d-i support for macs is
> added it doesn't have to be pushed in then.
>
> Last I heard kernel 2.6 support for mac was being worked on and 2.4 is
> getting skipped alltogether. I don't expect any newer udeb to replace
> this any time soon.

---

quote:

---

> Why can't that go into sarge?

---

quote:

---

> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> picked out everything older than 100 days.

---

quote:

---

> PS: Dear debain QA group, you own a few packages in the list and at
> least one isn't shown as orphaned.

---

quote:

---

> qmail-pop3-sv qmail-qfilter qmail-svqmail-smtp-sv

---

quote:

---

>
> nhc98

---

quote:

---

>picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
>are not in testing are:
>
>- non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile

---

quote:

---

>- FTBFS or RC bugs

---

quote:

---

>- possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
>- other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)

---

quote:

---

>Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
>fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
>caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.

---

quote:

---

>If I hear nothing about a package soon I will start with the oldest and do a
>few packages every day.

---

quote:

---

>
> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)

---

quote:

---

> Hi,

---

quote:

---

> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
> are not in testing are:
>
> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)
>
>
> Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.

---

quote:

---

> You better leave my packages alone.

---

quote:

---

> [Herbert Xu]
>
> I suspect that the proper way to make sure your packages are left
> alone, is for you to make sure they propagate into testing as they
> should. If they don't, the responsibility is yours if the packages
> are orphaned.

---

quote:

---

> Hi,
>
> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
> are not in testing are:
>
> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)

---

quote:

---

> If you maintain one of thses packages then tell me (including the
> names of packages you maintain) during the next week. If you are using
> one of these packages and could maintain (or NMU some fixes) you
> should contact the maintainer and me to work things out. If I hear
> nothing about a package soon I will start with the oldest and do a few
> packages every day.

---

quote:

---

> Hi,
>
> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and
> picked out everything older than 100 days. Reasons why those packages
> are not in testing are:
>
> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)
>
>
> Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.
>
> If you maintain one of thses packages then tell me (including the
> names of packages you maintain) during the next week. If you are using
> one of these packages and could maintain (or NMU some fixes) you
> should contact the maintainer and me to work things out. If I hear
> nothing about a package soon I will start with the oldest and do a few
> packages every day.
>
> Package list follows.
>
> MfG
> Goswin
>
> PS: Dear debain QA group, you own a few packages in the list and at
> least one isn't shown as orphaned.
>
> gspy

---

quote:

---

> Maybe we could make a list of packages that should be autobuild in
> contrib/non-free and distribute that to the buildds.

---

quote:

---

>
> Too lazy to look at every package, sorry.

---

quote:

---

> - non-free / contrib packages nobody tried to compile
> - FTBFS or RC bugs
> - possibly failure of the testing script to detect it
> - other packages hold you back (get involved in those other packages)

---

quote:

---

> 3270

---

quote:

---

> palo-installer
> s390-dasd s390-netdevice

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

---

quote:

---

>
> [snip]
>
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> I maintain gnu-smalltalk, but noone seems interested in sponsoring an
> upload for me. My regular sponsor has not been able to do an upload in
> ages. Requests for a new sponsor have gone unanswered.

---

quote:

---

> Op di 27-01-2004, om 04:08 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
>
> No, we couldn't. The only requirement for a package to go into non-free
> is "Debian must be allowed to distribute it".

---

quote:

---

> That does not include
> automated compilation (or even compilation, for that matter) or porting
> the thing to a different architecture.

---

quote:

---

> Hi,
>
> I looked through the differences between testing and unstable and

---

quote:

---

> Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.

---

quote:

---

> bass

---

quote:

---

> lmbench

---

quote:

---

> satan

---

quote:

---

> Don't include packages with "Keep this out of testing" RC bugs.

---

quote:

---

> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
> On 12/21 i sent an RFS for netjuke to debian-mentors without success
> after i contacted the Maintainer on 11/29.
>
> The Maintainer then replied to me on 12/27 telling me he's waiting for a
> his new key to be added to the keyring. As i didn't heard anything from
> him again, i mailed him again on 01/24 asking about his plans about his
> package. So it seems he's not MIA completely. I hope he'll incorporate
> some of the changes i made into his package and upload a new
> version 'soon'.

---

quote:

---

> For anyone interested, an updated package is available from:
> http://home.arcor.de/sfr/debian/
>
> This package fixes most of the bugs filed in the bts afaict.
> But as i'm not a developer there are probably still packaging issues
> to be resolved.
>
> ciao, Stefan

---

quote:

---

> [Goswin von Brederlow]
>
> The scripts that update the package list in testing ignore udebs. So
> a package which only produces udebs, do not propagate into testing.

---

quote:

---

> Op di 27-01-2004, om 04:08 schreef Goswin von Brederlow:
>
> No, we couldn't. The only requirement for a package to go into non-free
> is "Debian must be allowed to distribute it". That does not include
> automated compilation (or even compilation, for that matter) or porting
> the thing to a different architecture. Apart from that, many autobuilder
> admins (including me) will simply not want to run an autobuilder
> building non-free packages.

---

quote:

---

> (No, that doesn't mean I won't build a non-free package if the
> maintainer asks for it, which I have done in the past, but that's a
> different question)
>
>
> That's OK, but then don't start pointing fingers. Thanks.

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> (...)
>
> Not having a caring maintainer is not equal to not being autobuilt. Given
> the fact that for those non-free packages I maintain, some have been
> autobuilt at _some_ point

---

quote:

---

> Don't touch this unless you are willing to work on it, thanks

---

quote:

---

> Ditto.

---

quote:

---

> Ditto.

---

quote:

---

> Now, I really don't remember seeing a mail on d-announce saying that
> autobuilders would not build non-free packages, but maybe I've missed it.

---

quote:

---

> Since I don't see in the Policy or Devel's reference [1] why/when this
> changed I don't intend to play the game and start begging autobuilders to
> do what they have previously done before. Now, this was discussed in -devel
> [2], with no consensus AFAIK.
>
> If you think that QA would do a better job at mantaining these packages
> (which I don't) please do explain yourself. I find it funny that some think
> that we should not waste inexpensive (autobuilders=machine) resources in
> non-free packages but we are willing to waste expensive (QA=people)
> resources in them.

---

quote:

---

> Regards
>
> Javi
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.debian.org/doc/developer...rter-automation
> [2]
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...1/msg00270.html
> And please don't tell me it shouldn't be documented because both the Policy
> and Reference talk about non-free.

---

quote:

---

> Sorry if it's already been replied, I'm not up-to-date...

---

quote:

---

> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
> About every Java packages, they are not going in contrib because most
> depends on j2sdk1.(3|4) so, they are in contrib. THEY ARE NOT BROKEN!
> They just need a non-free JDK to build or to run.

---

quote:

---

>
> If you can make the one I'll point you, come one, go ahead!

---

quote:

---

>
> At the moment, argouml is 0.14. It's the latest stable release of the
> software and stuck in unstable because it needs j2sdk1.(3|4). If you
> wanna write some of the Swing classes to fill the 'classpath' project
> gaps, feel free to do it.

---

quote:

---

>
> Isn't it marked REMOVE? I think we already have some discussions about
> it and IBM does not provide this jdk.

---

quote:

---

>
> should be resolved

---

quote:

---

>
> I think for some, it's a j2sdk problem and if not, they depends on java
> packages that are stuck by the non-free jdk.
>
>
> I'll be working on next week, I'm talking with Mark.
>
> But please. We do read the lists!.. Do not mail everyone! Also,

---

quote:

---

> personally, I have a lot of work at the moment, but you can notice that
> I'm moving every packages to my debian email address. Only
> libgnujaxp-java (which I'm also working on upstream) and argouml do use
> my work address.

---

quote:

---

> * On 27-01-04 - 00:58, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I am working on a QA upload for qmail-qfilter.
> Actually qmail-sv, qmail-smtp-sv and qmail-pop3-sv are not orphaned.
>
> The problem here is that all these packages depends by qmail which
> isn't present because it's not allowed to distribute it in compiled
> form.
>
> What about making these packages Recommend qmail-src, perhaps giving
> additional informations in README.Debian?
>
> This is what I thought to do with qmail-qfilter.
>
> Cheers,
> ema

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:14:39PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> The responsibility is also on people orphaning packages to actually
> check why they aren't propagating into testing, rather than operating
> scattergun.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Please leave axe alone. I am trying to get it built for the architectures
> it is out-of-date on.

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:58:33AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> - they only builds udebs for non-releasable archs
>
>
> non-free but neccesary for any people which work on s/390.

---

quote:

---

>
> udeb only

---

quote:

---

> bastian

---

quote:

---

> There is also a s390 emulator you can run on your pc. It might
> not be the fastest but still faster than looking for someone to build
> the package for every upload.

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:24:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> How much faster could Debian releases occur if fewer archs. were
> supported? Has a cost/benefit ratio been established? (Bug counts v.
> installed base).

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> This reasonable approach was discussed / suggested several times
> (just search the archive) and ended always in: It's free. Would you
> volunteer to do it? I would love if someone would grab this hut.
>
> This would also work but this is kind of politics which concerns non-free.
> So if we try to go with the positive list approach above some people might
> be more happy ...

---

quote:

---

> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.

---

quote:

---

> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> writes:
>
> How about contrib?

---

quote:

---

> There are reasons for packages being in contrib or non-free which
> don't make me "hate" them, like the deb will Depend on something
> non-free. The list should only contain packages we can legally build
> and don't violate our personel or Debian philosophy (too much).
>
> I don't see a problem with building GPL software that depends on
> something outside of debian for example.

---

quote:

---

> Or software with a software patent on it (which is void where I am,
> thank god.).
>
> If I stick a non-free package in build/REDO (e.g. if someone asks me
> to build it for example) will the buildd reject it or does that work
> fine?

---

quote:

---

>
> I will get them when I run through unclaimed packages in details. For
> the list i just assumed that anything kept out of sarge for a reason
> like being a unstable release or cvs snapshot would get updated more
> frequently than 100 days. Whats the point of a cvs snapshot otherwise?
> I know its not perfect, already removed 2 packages I previously didn't
> spot.

---

quote:

---

>
> # The current maintainer is looking for someone who can take over

---

quote:

---

> to be co-maintainer in order to help the actual maintainer. Please
> see bug number #216883 for more information.
>
> Is that still true?

---

quote:

---

>
> It was mentioned in Bug number #216883 of yours so you must have
> forgotten about it since last October. But a number of DDs are
> surprised to hear that so your not alone not knowing.

---

quote:

---

> Some packages can't be autobuild for legal reasons. All of those are
> in non-free. There is no flag in the source packages saying what can
> be legally build and what not and no list is provided otherwise. Also
> some people don't want to support non-free software.

---

quote:

---

> I think what would work best currently is if you get a comaintainer
> for every arch you can't build the package on or at least a steady
> group of sponsors. If noone is willing to build the package you can
> file a bug against ftp.debian.org to get obsolete versions removed.

---

quote:

---

> Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org> writes:
>

---

quote:

---

>
>
> Which means they need manual intervention to get pushed into sarge. It
> just needs to be done where appropriate. A bunch of the Java related
> packages maintainer replied that they are waiting on sablevm or
> kaffe. Maybe that will be ready for sarge.

---

quote:

---

> non-free but neccesary for any people which work on s/390.

---

quote:

---

> Need manual pushing.

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:11:31AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
....[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> You can make a "positive" list of software that would not be of any
> problem to anyone, but there might be problems in that gray area.

---

quote:

---

> [...]
>
> You shouldn't have included them in the first place.
>
> If you send a mail to a developer claiming he's not doing his job well
> (which is exactly what you did), you had better be damn sure you're
> right. If you don't do that, you'll be pointing fingers to, and
> accusing, people who don't deserve it. That's the best way I could think
> of to demotivate a volunteer, and could, worst case, result in those
> leaving the project. Is that what you want?

---

quote:

---

> If you start pointing fingers at people for not maintaining their
> packages right -read: for being lazy- then make sure that's not
> something people can say you are.

---

quote:

---

> (Don't CC, I'm in -devel)
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:28:50AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> (...)
>
> Yes, it is. A RFA: is disctintly different from an O: however.
>
>
> Notice that I did not said I didn't know about this, I said I have not seen
> it mentioned "officially" (either in d-announce or in our documentation).

---

quote:

---

Some as in some of non-free/contrib, not just from the list.
[QUOTE][color=darkred]
>
> The funny thing is that most of the packages you mentioned from me (save
> for lmbench) have been autobuilt at some point and _no_one_ has ever asked
> me if there were legally reasons not to do this. I can understand that
> there might be _some_ packages that could not be autobuilt, but I fail to
> see why this would be applied to all packages, even those that have been
> already autobuild. Notice that the builds of my packages (and probably of
> many other DDs) have not been removed, so those "legal" reasons don't seem
> to be of much concern, but more of an excuse.

---

quote:

---

>
> No, I can still keep it the current way and only provide support for i386
> users running unstable, which is really fine by me too, BTW. And if someone
> comes over and asks why is 'X' not available/updated in his favorite
> architecture 'Y' I will forward him to the mailing list for that arch.

---

quote:

---

> So, you see, there's really some in-betweens in this situation. The fact
> that those packages are non-free mean that they are low priority for me,
> I will probably not fix bugs in them if there are serious bugs in other
> packages I maintain or co-maintain. That is not to say that I won't do it,
> it's just that there are other 62 packages that are higher in the listk.
> Given infinite time, they will get their share too.
>
> Since probably many others maintainers have not rejected NMUs or help from
> interested parties I don't see how this situation is better than handing
> them over to our (overloaded?) QA group. Matter of fact, I would not like
> to see QA people dedicating time to non-free packages when there are still
> RC bugs open.
>
> Regards
>
> Javi

---

quote:

---

> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:35:39AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Huh? I remember some
>
> ..., but we will never make the system depend
> on an item of non-free software.
>
> clause.
>
> Jochen
> --
> http://seehuhn.de/

---

quote:

---

> On Jan 27, Goswin von Brederlow (brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de) wrote:
....[QUOTE][color=darkred]
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Don't orphan aplus-fsf. It hasn't gone in because it depends on xemacs21,
> which has an m68k bug that is preventing it from going in. I provided the
> patch to fix a different RC bug (201657).

---

quote:

---

> I think such a positive list that a bunch of people and debian-legal
> have check would be nice. Even if its just as a guideline to people
> that get asked to compile something.

---

quote:

---

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Why talking about such list? Here is the start:

---

quote:

---

> Noone has cared enough about these packages to get them compiled,
> fixed or pushed into sarge so I am assuming the packages don't have a
> caring maintainer or fan community. Ergo they should be orphaned.

---