Debian Developers - Re: The unofficial buildd effort and its shutdown - my POV

This is Interesting: Free IT Magazines  
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > September 2004 > Re: The unofficial buildd effort and its shutdown - my POV





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: The unofficial buildd effort and its shutdown - my POV
Ingo Juergensmann

2004-09-05, 5:52 pm

On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:03:18AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:

> Yes you can do other things later, but its focussed on packaging and
> maintaing packages.


Right....

> Thats not right, there are currently two NM processes,
> first the classic NM process which is focussed on packaging
> and maintaining packages, here you have to get a package
> into the archive (I have several mails that prove that), to get
> maintainer. On the other side there is a process for documentation
> maintainers, as I currently know there is only of that maintainer existing
> yet. This process is focussed on getting things documented. (XML, SGML,
> docbook stuff). But there is no process that reflect the things a buildd
> maintainer does.


And neither packaging nor documentation is what I'm contributing, so I don't
feel that NM process is something for me.

> Maybe we should create a process especially for people we have to trust
> for several reasons, that don't wan't to get maintainers.
> (Some kind of signation or advocate process).
> Ingo for examples maintains buildds since I remember and I heard never any
> complaints how (technically) they are maintained, so lets trust him.
> I think every m68k user uses packages that are built on his buildd, this
> was good for several years and now its bad ? Thats a little bit stupid.


Yes, very stupid and I'm somewhat upset about this sudden turn.

> I think he wants some official statement that he could continue his
> work, without a new moron that beginns to complain about new things next week.


Yep, this is correct as well. It's basically the same as the
Troup-buildd-trust-security-police-passwd-sharing-thingie.
I basically had never problems in agreeing to James new policy, but I wanted
a security for me that this kind of "first change policy, tell people later
and blame them" wouldn't happen again. And communication is the basic ground
to avoid this kind of misunderstandings. He neglected my wish to avoid
future problems.
It's the same now for the buildd in general. I was good enough for several
years and suddenly I'm not anymore?
So, get the things cleared out and come back. It's not about that I don't
want to contribute anymore, it's about that I don't want to contribute under
*these* circumstances. I think, this should be understandable...

--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Sponsored Links






Free braindumps | Software forum | Database administration forum

Copyright 2003 - 2008 webservertalk.com