Debian Bug report logs - #754910
ITP: cgmanager

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: ITP: cgmanager

Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:39:19 +0000

Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2014-07-15
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Package name: cgmanager
Version: 0.27
Upstream author: cgmanager <cgmanager-devel@lists.linuxcontainers.org>
License: GPL-2, LGPL-2.1+
Programming Lang: C
URL: http://cgmanager.linuxcontainers.org/
Description: Central cgroup manager daemon
 cgmanager provides a central cgroup manager daemon and a
 per-namespace manager proxy, allowing users and programs
 to administrate cgroups through D-Bus requests.

Message #10 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>

Cc: 754910@bugs.debian.org

Subject: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:53:06 +0200

Hi,

there are currently two different versions of cgmanager in NEW, packaged
by two different maintainers... It might be a good idea for you to agree
on how to proceed.

Ansgar

Message #15 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: 754910@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:08:36 +0200

owner 754910 Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>
thanks

On 07/16/2014 01:53 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> there are currently two different versions of cgmanager in NEW, packaged
> by two different maintainers... It might be a good idea for you to agree
> on how to proceed.

given that my upload is pending in NEW since March 2014 (with a 
re-upload in June), I think it's clear to go forward by processing my 
package, drop Serges one.

Serge and I can work out later on how to collaborate on cgmanager 
packaging in Debian.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #22 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

To: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net, 754910@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:22:09 +0000

> Serge and I can work out later on how to collaborate on cgmanager
> packaging in Debian.

Note that the newer version is needed by systemd-shim to allow
non-systemd users to use logind.

Message #27 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Cc: 754910@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:25:59 +0200

On 07/16/2014 04:22 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Note that the newer version is needed by systemd-shim to allow
> non-systemd users to use logind.

right; I'm happy to upgrade asap to the new version as soon as the 
current 20-1 in NEW has passed; the idea is to minimize the burden on 
ftp-masters and sponsor.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #32 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Pitt <mpitt@debian.org>

To: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net, 754910@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:23:45 +0200

Hello Daniel,

Daniel Baumann [2014-07-16 14:08 +0200]:
> owner 754910 Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>

This seems a bit impolite to me. Serge filed that ITP, your upload
doesn't even have an ITP, so nobody really knew that you were also
working on this.

As 0.20 is too old to work with systemd-shim (that's the current main
focus as with systemd 208 logind doesn't work at all under
sysvinit/upstart, see #752939), it seems to me that starting with 0.27
and merging in possible improvements from your package is the way to
go?

> I think it's clear to go forward by processing my package, drop
> Serges one.

Neglecting a current and working package in favor of an outdated one,
and rejecting the upload which did follow the procedure (ITP) for an
upload which didn't seems odd to me.

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

Message #37 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: Martin Pitt <mpitt@debian.org>

Cc: 754910@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:42:11 +0200

On 07/16/2014 04:23 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> This seems a bit impolite to me. Serge filed that ITP, your upload
> doesn't even have an ITP, so nobody really knew that you were also
> working on this.

or, one could expect to check NEW before uploading. however..

> it seems to me that starting with 0.27
> and merging in possible improvements from your package is the way to
> go?

i beg to differ; as indicated, i do have 0.26 (and 0.27 is not much 
change, i'll merge that into my git later on) already. i'm just waiting 
for an ftp-master reply to my last inquiry.

if ftp-master would let in my 0.20-1 that they already reviewed, we can 
have 0.27-1 right away afterwards without nobody needing to do any 
additional work.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #42 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>

To: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Re: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:54:21 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

owner 754910 Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
thanks

On 07/16/2014 01:08 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> owner 754910 Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>
> thanks
> 
> On 07/16/2014 01:53 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> there are currently two different versions of cgmanager in NEW, packaged
>> by two different maintainers... It might be a good idea for you to agree
>> on how to proceed.
> 
> given that my upload is pending in NEW since March 2014 (with a
> re-upload in June), I think it's clear to go forward by processing my
> package, drop Serges one.
> 
> Serge and I can work out later on how to collaborate on cgmanager
> packaging in Debian.
> 

In debian, we have process to mitigate contention which is ITP bugs.
Please file ITP bugs before packaging software and uploading.
Also it's rude to take over ownership of the ITP bugs one did not file,
or get permission to transfer ownership of.

Serge is upstream committer for cgmanager and linuxcontainers projects,
and has been maintaining that package in Ubuntu since 20th of January
2014. As well as contributing patches and fixes to integrate cgroups
support in systemd-shim, upstart, lxc, systemd(logind) and libvirt. And
he is very active in Debian QEMU Team packaging team.

Looking at the packaging, the two are mostly equivalent, apart from
Daniel's is packaged from scratch using different package names and
layouts which would be disrubtive when merging into Ubuntu. Why did you
not import Ubuuntu packaging or contact Ubuntu maintainers about it,
given that re-packaging in Debian does affect Ubuntu. Or contact ustream
about packaging it in Debian? (which would coincidently reach the same
person). Specifically in your packaging, libcgmanager0 is not a separate
multi-arch:same package which would prevent multiarch binaries and
libraries depending on libcgmanager0.

Between the two, Serge has better in-depth package knowledge than
Daniel, upstream connections and better cooperation with other packages
that need/want to integrate with cgmanager (e.g. sending patches to
those upstreams and maintainers to optionally use cgmanager), and imho
better packaged version of cgmanager, for which he has filed ITP as per
debian processes given that it is required to update systemd-shim for
impeding v208 api compatibility update.

My preference as someone involved in upstart package maintenance in
Debian, for Serge and/or Debian QEMU team to maintain cgmanager, for
which next upstart update (1.13) will build-depend on. Please review for
acceptance Serge's packaging.

ps. I sponsored serge's package upload, upon the ITP and
mentors.debian.org upload. zigo, who sponsored  daniel's upload added to CC.

pss. Zigo, can you please ask your sponsorees in the future to always
file ITP bugs, contact upstream about packaging software in Debian, and
package libraries in co-installable separate multi-arch:same packages.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #49 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>

Cc: 754910@bugs.debian.org, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: Re: cgmanager: two different maintainers

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:09:04 +0200

On 07/16/2014 04:54 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Why did you not import Ubuuntu packaging

because, for that version, I consider my packaging to be superior.

> Please review for acceptance Serge's packaging.

I don't want to look small-minded or petty, however, I've already called 
shotgun - my packaging (and upload) was first, so it should be the one 
going into the archive.

If you think I'm not able to maintain cgmanager, you can always complain 
if/when such a problem arrises, not in advance.

Thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Daniel

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #52 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Richards Tagliamonte <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, <xnox@debian.org>

Subject: cgmanager_0.27-1_multi.changes REJECTED

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:00:05 +0000

Hello, folks; (this mail is going to both of y'all)

It's clear there's an overlap in who the rightful maintainer is. dba got here
first, but serge holds the ITP (basically the mutex in this race condition).

Both are in NEW at the same time, so I'm not going to let either in today.

It's very clear that you both care a lot about this package, Serge being
upstream, and dba taking the time to package this. Thanks for all that work.

Please sort out the package situation, and team-maintain this package (or at
least, figure out the maintenance situation) on alioth.debian.org. I'll continue
to reject packages that there's a dispute over.


Both of you have a valid claim to the package, so please work together.


Issues with 0.20:
  The -dev package situation is still broken. Either properly split your
  libraries or drop the -dev. Please see the mails from ansgar on this topic.
  This is a blocker for inclusion.


Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius,
  Paul

===

Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
concerns.

Message #57 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:30:26 +0800

Hi Paul,

Thanks for this message.

On 07/17/2014 01:00 AM, Paul Richards Tagliamonte wrote:
> Hello, folks; (this mail is going to both of y'all)
> 
> It's clear there's an overlap in who the rightful maintainer is. dba got here
> first, but serge holds the ITP (basically the mutex in this race condition).
> 
> Both are in NEW at the same time, so I'm not going to let either in today.
> 
> It's very clear that you both care a lot about this package, Serge being
> upstream, and dba taking the time to package this. Thanks for all that work.
> 
> Please sort out the package situation, and team-maintain this package (or at
> least, figure out the maintenance situation) on alioth.debian.org. I'll continue
> to reject packages that there's a dispute over.
> 
> 
> Both of you have a valid claim to the package, so please work together.
> 
> 
> Issues with 0.20:
>   The -dev package situation is still broken. Either properly split your
>   libraries or drop the -dev. Please see the mails from ansgar on this topic.
>   This is a blocker for inclusion.

I'm sorry if this sounds not so cool, but I'm not sure I get this.
Ansgar wrote that there should be a -dev package (on which Daniel wrote
back that he thought it'd be micro-packaging, which is something that
the FTP masters have for a long time advocate against), and now you're
advising that dropping the -dev package could be a solution. So what is
it that Daniel should be doing exactly, in a way that the FTP masters
would accept?

Please provide a clear and motivated reason about rejecting that can
make sense for Daniel and his sponsor, so that the next upload attempt
is successful, which would save time and effort for everyone.

Also, it's looking like the current situation is frustrating for Daniel.
As you all know, he's been working on the package since a long time
(more than 4 months), and one of the reasons why there's currently a
package ownership conflict is because it took so long in the NEW queue
with multiple rejects. I'm of course not pointing fingers at the FTP
master team (the amount of work is just huge, and I do understand why it
can take that long to check for packages...), I just wanted to share his
frustration with you, because it's never a good thing to keep feelings
unsaid.

I've by the way clearly told Daniel that he was wrong for not opening an
ITP (he really is). However, one of the reasons we're having ITPs, is so
that others can oppose to it. The ITP was opened on the 15th, and the
*next* day (in less than 24 hours), Daniel opposed to it, and claimed
ownership of it. So in this case, it wouldn't, IMO, be fair to then just
say Serge Hallyn should be the maintainer of cgmanager, just because he
opened an ITP. That's not how ITP should work in Debian, and that's not
how they do.

So, talking about "race condition" as you put it here, is kind of an
overstatement to me.

I also found that Dimitri John Ledkov action of changing the ownership
of the ITP back to Serge inappropriate. It's just trying to push for a
conflicts, and it shows in his wording on this ITP. Dimitri, could you
try to calm down for a second?

Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
> Looking at the packaging, the two are mostly equivalent, apart from
> Daniel's is packaged from scratch using different package names and
> layouts which would be disrubtive when merging into Ubuntu. Why did
> you not import Ubuuntu packaging or contact Ubuntu maintainers about
> it, given that re-packaging in Debian does affect Ubuntu.

The rightful question should more be: why Ubuntu guys didn't do the work
in Debian to begin with? We're supposed to be upstream from Ubuntu, no?
So if they do things on their side, then later on there's something
different on the Debian side that appears, shouldn't it be their fault
to begin with? I have numerous examples of Ubuntu guys doing changes in
the Debian packaging without even notifying Debian, then wake up when
it's too late. I think this is yet another example.

Also, it's to be noted that Daniel seems to want to work together with
Serge, so why trying to push for more conflicts? Let's try to make the
situation better, no?

Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
> Between the two, Serge has better in-depth package knowledge than
> Daniel, upstream connections and better cooperation with other
> packages that need/want to integrate with cgmanager (e.g. sending
> patches to those upstreams and maintainers to optionally use
> cgmanager)

My experience with upstream trying to do Debian packaging isn't great.
Often, they only care about a single package, know it's upstream source,
but don't perform well on the packaging side. I don't think what you've
wrote above is a good point of argumentation.

> and imho better packaged version of cgmanager, for which
> he has filed ITP as per debian processes given that it is required to
> update systemd-shim for impeding v208 api compatibility update.
>
> My preference as someone involved in upstart package maintenance in
> Debian, for Serge and/or Debian QEMU team to maintain cgmanager, for
> which next upstart update (1.13) will build-depend on. Please review
> for acceptance Serge's packaging.

My preference would be that you don't take side so quickly, and try to
push for cooperation, rather than trying to make the situation worse.

> pss. Zigo, can you please ask your sponsorees in the future to always
> file ITP bugs, contact upstream about packaging software in Debian,
> and package libraries in co-installable separate multi-arch:same
> packages.

Well, I can *advise* him to do that, but there's nothing in our by-laws
that forces him to do it (for all of your 3 points). So it wont be
mandatory for me sponsoring packages, or for the FTP masters to accept
them as much as I know.

By the way, ITP are a courtesy, and I've never read that they were
mandatory (have you seen FTP masters rejecting packages on that ground?
I haven't...).

On your side, please tell your sponsorees that there is a reasonable
amount of time during which anyone can discuss or oppose to an ITP. Less
than 24 hours is well within that reasonable time for sure.

Anyway, let's hope this can be solved in the best possible way, without
too much frustration on either side.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #62 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:35:30 +0200

On 07/16/2014 08:30 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Please provide a clear and motivated reason about rejecting that can
> make sense for Daniel and his sponsor, so that the next upload attempt
> is successful, which would save time and effort for everyone.

this is not needed from ftp-master anymore, Serge and I have an 
understanding, new package will be uploaded that suits both of us soonish.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #67 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

Cc: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:39:13 +0000

> My experience with upstream trying to do Debian packaging isn't great.
> Often, they only care about a single package, know it's upstream source,
> but don't perform well on the packaging side. I don't think what you've
> wrote above is a good point of argumentation.

Uh, thanks.

Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon which
Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as maintainer.  We'll
proceed from there.

thanks,
-serge

Message #72 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

Cc: Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:41:16 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

[editing to only reply to parts]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:30:26AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I'm sorry if this sounds not so cool, but I'm not sure I get this.
> Ansgar wrote that there should be a -dev package (on which Daniel wrote
> back that he thought it'd be micro-packaging, which is something that
> the FTP masters have for a long time advocate against), and now you're
> advising that dropping the -dev package could be a solution. So what is
> it that Daniel should be doing exactly, in a way that the FTP masters
> would accept?

From Ansgar:

| If it is a private library, then there should be no -dev package. If you
| include a -dev package, other packages may use the shared library and it
| is no longer a private library (even though no package currently might
| do so).
| 
| So currently I don't think the included shared library is actually a
| private library. Please either a, don't include a -dev package, or b,
| build a proper shared library package (and please use lib* and lib*-dev
| in that case).

    <53BA6738.9090103@debian.org>

> I've by the way clearly told Daniel that he was wrong for not opening an
> ITP (he really is). However, one of the reasons we're having ITPs, is so
> that others can oppose to it.

No, it's so we don't duplicate work.

> say Serge Hallyn should be the maintainer of cgmanager, just because he
> opened an ITP. That's not how ITP should work in Debian, and that's not
> how they do.

Currently, neither are the maintainer. I asked them to resolve it before
one of them did become the maintainer. ITPs are mutexes, not ownership,
which is why I didn't let Serge's package through.

FTR, I didn't see these issues on his package, and after a review, it might
have turned out to be fine for the archive.

> So, talking about "race condition" as you put it here, is kind of an
> overstatement to me.

No. It's not. You file an ITP to avoid duplicating work. You didn't file
an ITP (or have dba do it), so work was duplicated. Now we're dealing
with it. That's a race condition. Lesson learned?

> Well, I can *advise* him to do that, but there's nothing in our by-laws
> that forces him to do it (for all of your 3 points). So it wont be
> mandatory for me sponsoring packages, or for the FTP masters to accept
> them as much as I know.

No, you just waste contributor time like this.

> By the way, ITP are a courtesy, and I've never read that they were
> mandatory (have you seen FTP masters rejecting packages on that ground?
> I haven't...).

No, and we havn't, but they waste everyone's time by not filing them.
Just like spitting on the sidewalk isn't illegal, but very rude to
others.


Cheers,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>  |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #77 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Cc: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 02:59:16 +0800

On 07/17/2014 02:39 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
>> My experience with upstream trying to do Debian packaging isn't great.
>> Often, they only care about a single package, know it's upstream source,
>> but don't perform well on the packaging side. I don't think what you've
>> wrote above is a good point of argumentation.
> 
> Uh, thanks.

This wasn't directed to you personally at all, so please don't take it
for you! I have no idea how you do on packaging. It was just comments
about Dimitri John Ledkov point of argumentation.

By the way, Daniel doing the packaging, and you doing peer-review on it
because you need it for Ubuntu, and you care for it, is probably the
best outcome for this particular package. 2 pairs of eyes is always
better than a single one.

> Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon which
> Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as maintainer.  We'll
> proceed from there.

Great, I'm happy it got solved the positive way!

On 07/17/2014 02:41 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> Lesson learned?

Definitively yes! I don't want this to happen again.

Thomas

Message #82 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

Cc: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:22:16 +0100

On 16 July 2014 19:30, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for this message.
>
> On 07/17/2014 01:00 AM, Paul Richards Tagliamonte wrote:
>> Issues with 0.20:
>>   The -dev package situation is still broken. Either properly split your
>>   libraries or drop the -dev. Please see the mails from ansgar on this topic.
>>   This is a blocker for inclusion.
>
> I'm sorry if this sounds not so cool, but I'm not sure I get this.
> Ansgar wrote that there should be a -dev package (on which Daniel wrote
> back that he thought it'd be micro-packaging, which is something that
> the FTP masters have for a long time advocate against), and now you're
> advising that dropping the -dev package could be a solution.

At the moment, upstart package is cross-compilable and for it to stay
cross-compilable it's build-dependencies should be installable on the
host, or ideally co-installable for multiple architectures. Shipping
libcgmanager.so.0 in cgmanager package prevents that, since installing
cgmanager-dev would install foreign arch cgmanager potentially nuking
your init from under ones feet if one is running upstart as pid 1.
Hence from upstart/lxc/systemd-shim packaging point of view, I request
that in debian libcgmanager0 & libcgmanager-dev [*] are present, and
are Architecture:any and Multi-Arch:same. An example of this can be
found in the current Ubuntu packaging, but can be implemented
otherwise. (this way cgamanger:native can continue to function, whilst
for example libcgmanager-dev:armhf can be used for cross-compilation).
If believe I've pointed that out as well in my first review of
Daniel's packaging. Whilst it may appear as micro-packaging, it is
necessary for cross-compilation purposes & to run multiarch binaries
(e.g. i386 binaries that link against libcgmanager0 on amd64) both of
which have been and/or are ongoing Debian Release goals.

[*] these are just semantic names
-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.

Message #87 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>

Cc: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <mail@daniel-baumann.ch>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:42:07 +0200

Dimitri,

it doesn't make sense to discuss this any further since the original 
*technical* things behind it have changed *since* the time when 
cgmanager have been uploaded the first time. Just let Serge and me 
handle it from here, it will be alright (for both of us).

Thanks,
Daniel

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #92 received at 754910-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

To: 754910-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#754910: fixed in cgmanager 0.28-1

Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:00:07 +0000

Source: cgmanager
Source-Version: 0.28-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
cgmanager, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 754910@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com> (supplier of updated cgmanager package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:25:10 -0500
Source: cgmanager
Binary: cgmanager cgmanager-utils cgmanager-tests libcgmanager0 libcgmanager-dev
Architecture: source amd64 all
Version: 0.28-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
Changed-By: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
Description:
 cgmanager  - Central cgroup manager daemon
 cgmanager-tests - Central cgroup manager daemon (tests)
 cgmanager-utils - Central cgroup manager daemon (utilities)
 libcgmanager-dev - Central cgroup manager daemon (dev)
 libcgmanager0 - Central cgroup manager daemon (client library)
Closes: 754910
Changes:
 cgmanager (0.28-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * Initial release for Debian. (Closes: #754910)
   * debian/cgmanager.cgmanager.init: always mount name=systemd
   * debian/control:
     - remove hardening-wrapper dependency
     - make cgmanager-tests arch:all
   * debian/rules
     - remove CDBS hardening flags
     - set DEB_BUILD_MAINT_OPTIONS = hardening=+all
     - split out override_dh_installinit
   * debian/*init
     - use /run not /var/run for pidfiles
     - implement status
     - don't use 'service'
   * remove *.dirs and *.lintian-overrides
   * correct the copyright file
Checksums-Sha1:
 e3638aef9c146ecd57f053c2ac0470ea6f48c2f6 2099 cgmanager_0.28-1.dsc
 7648483a5a08e4d7240a56a2453392ef6cf0a9ff 405102 cgmanager_0.28.orig.tar.gz
 4772c0d6cd5b778d3eaa94bce27d654e1c2403c8 8448 cgmanager_0.28-1.debian.tar.xz
 c9dd948cca3b2d1a43d5eb226e8f300c7c83b822 60146 cgmanager_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 f42418a4f8521775e645a577f222df072cb436e2 9214 cgmanager-utils_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 4948ab236ace2c295345bbc864e70b8a338df133 12160 cgmanager-tests_0.28-1_all.deb
 0079f57b2d65f4ac178ca388aefd75a6fd5c154f 33414 libcgmanager0_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 d69c628af2d9d6cd6457e94d57b09b5a775427cf 9456 libcgmanager-dev_0.28-1_amd64.deb
Checksums-Sha256:
 35a9262854efdf011dfebfbb3eb48a7df33ce51de326550206643a1778bdc7e5 2099 cgmanager_0.28-1.dsc
 23572520575cb7bf40e08f710bfd114e3fa6a67e565c55e97e07155ceefd73c2 405102 cgmanager_0.28.orig.tar.gz
 44634517333ff5d90449e760fca1d2c7682c6a4e8922758f45d0754e93426c0a 8448 cgmanager_0.28-1.debian.tar.xz
 232304725ab75539c30d86b3360b57c68c7c4b7a67ccd3572f0e12a9aa936967 60146 cgmanager_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 b8538e238b7e8f1ddac30c95d40b7df9169dd2850bc33dcab50aee235c9ba0b7 9214 cgmanager-utils_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 bca8f68086c47a6797bdbc9dc8d2db4c28c19ae1479b33827cda3087ba86bd5f 12160 cgmanager-tests_0.28-1_all.deb
 ebe7e0161edbb4bcab8c03cb1dd82d213e4ea0e7eca949e756476c9b8d829770 33414 libcgmanager0_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 e8a639041aecd7cc7b4fef9b2b9e0d71e2b71b4dba705643962910a3ea8e9126 9456 libcgmanager-dev_0.28-1_amd64.deb
Files:
 5df7e306d6bbc2ffd56639d9007651c1 60146 admin optional cgmanager_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 8552f92dcf0968974f5f6e6c2ab8ce4d 9214 admin optional cgmanager-utils_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 dc5aa812af6bb4f51aaee7ee625ddeba 12160 admin optional cgmanager-tests_0.28-1_all.deb
 887a93355f2c943ec79f53aaf85819e1 33414 admin optional libcgmanager0_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 d85dc2a36030faeee0b5e9c5e83c8cee 9456 libdevel optional libcgmanager-dev_0.28-1_amd64.deb
 9a36a1730ff63ac90e795d99fb98a69b 2099 admin optional cgmanager_0.28-1.dsc
 dd7e5d116ea34b4fb1ecc0b558fa041d 405102 admin optional cgmanager_0.28.orig.tar.gz
 1a8578c938448eba3880994de4c077ac 8448 admin optional cgmanager_0.28-1.debian.tar.xz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=NFCp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #97 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

To: 754910@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:28:40 +0200

Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
> Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
> which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
> maintainer.  We'll proceed from there.

seems these words are not worth anything.

instead, Serge uploaded a new version (through Steve) yesterday, and 
ftp-master (eventhough being kept in the loop on all mails in #754910) 
just happily accepted that right away.

i spend quite some time on this package, all in vain. hope at least 
you're happy with the way you treat people, because i'm not.

-- 
Address:        Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern
Email:          daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net
Internet:       http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/

Message #102 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>

To: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

Cc: 754910@bugs.debian.org, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:12:41 +0100

On 25 July 2014 15:28, Daniel Baumann
<daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net> wrote:
> Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
>> Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
>> which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
>> maintainer.  We'll proceed from there.
>
> seems these words are not worth anything.
>
> instead, Serge uploaded a new version (through Steve) yesterday, and
> ftp-master (eventhough being kept in the loop on all mails in #754910) just
> happily accepted that right away.
>
> i spend quite some time on this package, all in vain. hope at least you're
> happy with the way you treat people, because i'm not.
>

I'm sorry you feel this way, however my original complaint against
your development around it still stands: please file ITPs in the
future, and please use multiarch for any new libraries, and please
talk to upstream about packaging things, and please have vested
intrinsic knowledge of a given software before embarking on trivial
packaging work around it. Debian is way past the point where we
rapidly trivially package things to "get it in first". Instead we
really are after meritocracy, and making sure the best people
available take care of the individual parts of our operating system.
I'm sure your patches to cgmanager or any other software in Debian is
highly welcome and would be applied/reviewed/NMUed as appropriate. I
value your contributions to Debian, especially when it's something
extraordinary and new. Redoing readily available debian compatible
packaging from scratch, is - all in vain, and I still don't see how
that gave Debian or yourself any competitive advantage, apart from
ultimately delaying integration of newer core components in Debian.

Back when I was not a DD, I was seeking sponsorship through my teams
and debian-mentors mailing-list / irc channel. At the time, it was
clear that sponsors were setting the standards much higher than what's
required and recommended by policy. To the point of refusing to
sponsor things, until everything was perfect. As a sponsor today, I
try to adhere to the same high standards, but it looks like that may
be slipping in the project. Collectively we should be making sure that
Debian is more like a zen garden, than a kitchen sink.

ps. not sure why leader is added to the CC. If you feel you are not
treated well in Debian Project, you should contact Debain Anti
Harassment team at antiharassment@d.o email alias to discuss and
resolve your concerns.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.

Message #107 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

To: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net, 754910@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, vorlon@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:55:12 +0000

Quoting Daniel Baumann (daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net):
> Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
> > Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
> > which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
> > maintainer.  We'll proceed from there.
> 
> seems these words are not worth anything.

According to my logs it was last wednesday (in your evening) that you said you
would push the package.  I expected it to be pushed on Friday.  I pinged
you again on monday or tuesday, you only said it would come soon.  Meanwhile
people running non-systemd experimental systems were blocked.

> instead, Serge uploaded a new version (through Steve) yesterday, and
> ftp-master (eventhough being kept in the loop on all mails in
> #754910) just happily accepted that right away.
> 
> i spend quite some time on this package, all in vain. hope at least
> you're happy with the way you treat people, because i'm not.

I didn't want to push it, but felt I had no choice.  There was no
*technical* reason not to - there were fewer problems with my package,
and even when I asked you in irc for any advantage of your package over
mine, you listed none.  You want to maintain this package, but it
seems clear you don't have the time to do it justice - so why?

Message #112 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>

To: daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net, 754910@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:32:39 +0200

Hi,

On 07/25/2014 16:28, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
>> Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
>> which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
>> maintainer.  We'll proceed from there.
> 
> seems these words are not worth anything.
> 
> instead, Serge uploaded a new version (through Steve) yesterday, and
> ftp-master (eventhough being kept in the loop on all mails in #754910)
> just happily accepted that right away.

Yes, you said that both of you have an understanding:

| this is not needed from ftp-master anymore, Serge and I have an
| understanding, new package will be uploaded that suits both of us
| soonish.

It didn't say what exactly that was, but when I saw a new acceptable
package in the queue that looked okay and came by one of you, I just
accepted it...

(The NEW processing shows the Changed-By field; I assumed that you would
probably comaintain it or agreed who would maintain it, but didn't look
at the Maintainer/Uploader fields.)

Ansgar

Message #117 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>

Cc: 754910@bugs.debian.org, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 00:39:27 +0800

On 07/25/2014 11:12 PM, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> ps. not sure why leader is added to the CC.

It's quite obvious: there's bad behavior here, and Daniel wants to warn
(rightly) the DPL about it. I would suggest that you quit your very
condescending / borderline-insulting tone to start with, this is really
not appropriate.

I'll refrain from quoting what isn't, hoping that you're smart enough to
reread yourself and perhaps re-evaluate the way you interact with
Daniel. If you can't do that, then it means Daniel was right to add
Lucas as CC.

Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just
accepted without any explanation. Have the FTP masters decided in the
favor of Serge's maintenance and want Daniel out?

> If you feel you are not
> treated well in Debian Project, you should contact Debain Anti
> Harassment team at antiharassment@d.o email alias to discuss and
> resolve your concerns.

Probably you should read the definition of harassment in a dictionary.
This is not the problem here. The DPL is the right person to get in
touch with when there's some bad social behaviors.

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #122 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 12:51:34 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:39:27AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Have the FTP masters decided in the favor of Serge's maintenance and
> want Daniel out?

The package in NEW. It was OK for the archive. It was accepted. It's
not the ftpteam's job to figure out how to coordinate or question every
upload.

That's not our job.

If you want to dispute maintainership at this point, please bring it to the
ctte, who may help resolve maintainer conflicts.


Cheers,
   Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>  |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #127 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:23:38 +0000

Quoting Thomas Goirand (zigo@debian.org):
> Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
> Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
> at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just

As Daniel said we had an agreement.  He was going to push the package.  He
failed to do that, causing over a week's delay in straightening out the
non-systemd-upgrade mess.  But instead of dropping in on that thread and
apologizing, he's complaining here.

I have enough to do that when I can delegate something to someone else I'm
happy and thankful to them.  Last week I was hoping that would be the
situation here.  Alas.

-serge

Message #132 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>

To: 754910@bugs.debian.org, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Cc: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:12:12 +0200

Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 18:23:38 schrieb Serge Hallyn:
> Quoting Thomas Goirand (zigo@debian.org):
> > Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
> > Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
> > at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just
> 
> As Daniel said we had an agreement.  He was going to push the package.  He
> failed to do that, causing over a week's delay in straightening out the
> non-systemd-upgrade mess.  But instead of dropping in on that thread and
> apologizing, he's complaining here.

My experience is that is usually does not work expecting someone else to 
apologize, before having apologized oneself for the part of the behavior that 
contributed to the undesirable outcome.

> I have enough to do that when I can delegate something to someone else I'm
> happy and thankful to them.  Last week I was hoping that would be the
> situation here.  Alas.

Please talk to one another assuming everyone had good intentions.

Daniel who maintains a ton of packages started to orphan them (see debian-
devel-changes). 

I bet thats not the intended outcome.

To me this conflict does not appear to be unsolvable. Please try to resolve it.

A good step would be if one side starts to say "I am sorry" for some of their 
behavior that could have been rude. Usually both sides have their share in a 
conflict.


Daniel, please reconsider / stop orphaning your packages. I really appreciate 
your immense packaging effort!

I just maintain some little packages and help with bug reports and testing, 
but I am really worried by whats happening here.

Thanks,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Message #137 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>

To: 754910@bugs.debian.org, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>

Cc: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:11:34 +0200

Dimitri,

Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 16:12:41 schrieb Dimitri John Ledkov:
> On 25 July 2014 15:28, Daniel Baumann
> 
> <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net> wrote:
> > Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>
> > 
> >> Anyway, I'll be posting a new 0.28 release later today, based upon
> >> which Daniel will post a new package, with himself listed as
> >> maintainer.  We'll proceed from there.
> > 
> > seems these words are not worth anything.
> > 
> > instead, Serge uploaded a new version (through Steve) yesterday, and
> > ftp-master (eventhough being kept in the loop on all mails in #754910)
> > just
> > happily accepted that right away.
> > 
> > i spend quite some time on this package, all in vain. hope at least you're
> > happy with the way you treat people, because i'm not.
> 
> I'm sorry you feel this way, however my original complaint against
> your development around it still stands: please file ITPs in the
> future, and please use multiarch for any new libraries, and please
> talk to upstream about packaging things, and please have vested
> intrinsic knowledge of a given software before embarking on trivial
> packaging work around it. Debian is way past the point where we
> rapidly trivially package things to "get it in first". Instead we
> really are after meritocracy, and making sure the best people
> available take care of the individual parts of our operating system.
> I'm sure your patches to cgmanager or any other software in Debian is
> highly welcome and would be applied/reviewed/NMUed as appropriate. I
> value your contributions to Debian, especially when it's something
> extraordinary and new. Redoing readily available debian compatible
> packaging from scratch, is - all in vain, and I still don't see how
> that gave Debian or yourself any competitive advantage, apart from
> ultimately delaying integration of newer core components in Debian.
> 
> Back when I was not a DD, I was seeking sponsorship through my teams
> and debian-mentors mailing-list / irc channel. At the time, it was
> clear that sponsors were setting the standards much higher than what's
> required and recommended by policy. To the point of refusing to
> sponsor things, until everything was perfect. As a sponsor today, I
> try to adhere to the same high standards, but it looks like that may
> be slipping in the project. Collectively we should be making sure that
> Debian is more like a zen garden, than a kitchen sink.

If I would be on the receiving end of this – maintaining as many packages as 
Daniel maintains (or – sadly – maintained) – I would probably feel like crap.

Cause I would probably receive it like this: Someone devalues my maintainer 
work that I am so passionate about.

I appreciate Daniel´s work and use a lot of his packages on my Debian systems.

In the same way some could devalue my work on fsmark or fio as trivial 
packaging work. Yet… I always thought that every contribution to the Debian 
project is valuable and welcome.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Message #142 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

To: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>, 754910@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#754910: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:31:15 +0000

Quoting Martin Steigerwald (Martin@lichtvoll.de):
> Am Freitag, 25. Juli 2014, 18:23:38 schrieb Serge Hallyn:
> > Quoting Thomas Goirand (zigo@debian.org):
> > > Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
> > > Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
> > > at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just
> > 
> > As Daniel said we had an agreement.  He was going to push the package.  He
> > failed to do that, causing over a week's delay in straightening out the
> > non-systemd-upgrade mess.  But instead of dropping in on that thread and
> > apologizing, he's complaining here.
> 
> My experience is that is usually does not work expecting someone else to 
> apologize, before having apologized oneself for the part of the behavior that 
> contributed to the undesirable outcome.
> 
> > I have enough to do that when I can delegate something to someone else I'm
> > happy and thankful to them.  Last week I was hoping that would be the
> > situation here.  Alas.
> 
> Please talk to one another assuming everyone had good intentions.
> 
> Daniel who maintains a ton of packages started to orphan them (see debian-
> devel-changes). 
> 
> I bet thats not the intended outcome.
> 
> To me this conflict does not appear to be unsolvable. Please try to resolve it.
> 
> A good step would be if one side starts to say "I am sorry" for some of their 
> behavior that could have been rude. Usually both sides have their share in a 
> conflict.

I *am* sorry that some of dba's time was likely wasted, especially since
it's obvious he has a shortage of it, maintaining quite a few packages.
For the same reason I fail to see how having one less package to
maintain could be anything but a relief.

The bug messages on orphan bugs say something along the lines of "not worth
it".  If you're purely maintaining those packages to help out, and you feel
it is a strain time-wise, then how could not having to maintain another
package make you feel it's "not worth it".

Message #147 received at 754910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com>

Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-technologies.net>, 754910@bugs.debian.org, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org>, leader@debian.org

Subject: Re: cgmanager_0.20-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:25:46 +0800

Serge,

It's looking like to me that you don't understand why Daniel is unhappy
about the situation. I'll try hereby to explain, in the hope to restore
sanity in communication. Please don't take anything personally, this
message doesn't aim at pointing finger at anyone. I really do think
there's only miss-communication and lack of understanding, which is
fixable if both parties want it.

On 07/26/2014 02:23 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Goirand (zigo@debian.org):
>> Then, reading #754910, it looked like Serge was about to work with
>> Daniel, but finally, didn't. No sign of this change in #754910, which is
>> at least surprising. It's also very surprising to see the package just
> 
> As Daniel said we had an agreement.  He was going to push the package.  He
> failed to do that, causing over a week's delay in straightening out the
> non-systemd-upgrade mess.

One week delay is, IMO, perfectly reasonable, considering how much we've
waited for this package already. And if you thought it was too much and
couldn't wait, you could upload your new version, add him in the
Uploaders: field, and discuss other eventual pending issues later. But
you decided to just upload silently, without telling about what you've
done, and Daniel just discover things after the facts. So his reaction
isn't surprising: he now has the feeling you're pushing him away after
he showed interest in the package.

> But instead of dropping in on that thread and
> apologizing, he's complaining here.

He's rightly complaining that you're not considering at all his work,
and just took over a package he worked on since last March. Maybe it'd
help if you tried to see things from his point of view. Now we're back
to square one, before you accepted to work with him.

> I have enough to do that when I can delegate something to someone else I'm
> happy and thankful to them. Last week I was hoping that would be the
> situation here.  Alas.

It's still possible to do collaborative work, but you've got to show a
bit of consideration for the person you're about to work with. Right
now, it doesn't look like it's going through this path ...

On 07/26/2014 04:31 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> I *am* sorry that some of dba's time was likely wasted, especially
> since it's obvious he has a shortage of it, maintaining quite a few
> packages. For the same reason I fail to see how having one less
> package to maintain could be anything but a relief.

Judging Daniel's involvement, dedication and available time just by one
week of (non-) activity isn't appropriate. Everyone has busy weeks, and
other moments where there's more free time. It is also quite obvious
that Daniel cared about gcmanager and that it's not a relief at all (I
believe he cares about it because he maintains LXC).

> The bug messages on orphan bugs say something along the lines of "not
> worth it". If you're purely maintaining those packages to help out,
> and you feel it is a strain time-wise, then how could not having to
> maintain another package make you feel it's "not worth it".

Because gcmanager is part of a package suite. For example, the same way
I maintain a bunch of dependencies and side packages for OpenStack, I
now feel like I should orphan (or let go with ITA) a few other packages,
so that I can maintain better all of OpenStack (or rather: so that
someone else can maintain better the packages which I don't have time
for anymore). So what Daniel does when orphaning packages makes sense,
even though the orphaning messages could be improved.

Anyway, I'm not even sure it is up to you to judge this, you only needed
to know he cared about gcmanager, and was only asked to work with him.
Was this too much to ask for? Would you reconsider?

Hoping the above really helps for a better understanding, and that it
will lead to more team work (package team maintenance is by the way
always better). Please note that I'm available for sponsoring any
further upload of gcmanager if Daniel is involved again.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

P.S: I agree with FTP masters's point of view that it's not their role
to do arbitration of package ownership, and thanks for letting everyone
know what happened.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.