Web lists-archives.com

Re: PTS, salsa and knowing if a Debian Maintainer has uploaded a point release.

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 01:54:20PM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Now as I understand it and please share if I'm in the wrong,  alioth
> is going away and salsa is taking over repository creation, branching
I don't see how this is related to the uploading stuff.

> and maybe at some point also the BTS although then reportbug would
> have to be retooled to query salsa/gitlab so similar functionality can
> be provided as it does for bug creation .
I think the current consensus is that it won't.

> Now if the package maintainer is just a DM, even (s)f he prepares a
> package, (s)he still needs the ok of a DD to upload/sponsor the
> package so it fit for distribution i.e. new, experimental or unstable
> and  ftp-mirror and that whole process.
This is not true. Please read https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer
I think you mean regular non-DM non-DD maintainers.

> Now a user of the package is usually in the dark about this and there
> is a possibility of upsetting the maintainer even though the person is
> active on their own team.
The maintainer can also be preparing the package for uploading and you
cannot do anything to know that except asking them. And if they committed
the work in progress into the VCS the tracker will show that.
tracker could show RFSes though, like how-can-i-help does, actually I
thought it already shows them.

> I looked at the tracker.debian.org BTS page and saw [2] 317711 which
> exactly talks of this kind of situation and more and this was filed in
> 2005 so it isn't something which isn't known, just hasn't been
> acknowledged.
It only talks about NEW. tracker shows binary NEW, though only in the
version sidebar, not in the news.
Do you know any other states which it should track? It's not clear from
your email.

> This unknowing became apparent to me when the debian-mate were doing
> packaging for the 1.20.0 release [3] and more recently when I am
> asking for a point release of qbittorrent [4] . In this case I know
> that the maintainer is usually pretty active and perhaps uses the
> package as well.
It's not clear what problems do you have with these packages and what are
you proposing to solve them.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature