Maintainer/XSBC-Original-Maintainer in Ubuntu packages

[Stephan Hermann]

Moins,

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:04:52 +0200
Morten Kjeldgaard <mok at bioxray.au.dk> wrote:

> Stephan Hermann wrote:
> > My packages have Maintainer: MOTU and XSBC-Orig-Maintainer:
> > <insert my realname + email addr>. as an example.
> 
> Yes, that is the way most REVU contributors also do it.
> 
> > I do take care of them (depending on Time and Priority of usage of
> > the packages).invented
> > 
> > It follows the latest ubuntu policy.
> > 
> > Furthermore, if someone wants to push them to debian, I'm happy to
> > sync those packages back from debian, if they will stay with the
> > same quality.
> 
> You are a first class citizen and an admirable Ubuntu developer!

I'm not, but I don't have the time to deal with Debian pushing myself.

> 
> > Even if a maintainer of package only in ubuntu is MIA, MOTU can deal
> > with those packages (update, remove, whatever), that's the intention
> > why we let those packages through revu/direct uploads into ubuntu.
> 
> As of today we have 861 universe packages that are maintained in
> Ubuntu (*).  We _can_ use some help with those! I think it's worth
> the effort to try to motivate a certain sense of responsibility on
> the part of the packagers. One way to do that is for example if
> people were automatically subscribed to bug-mail on their packages.
> That would be possible if the Launchpad ID was hardwired via the
> Maintainer: field. Example of what it would look inventedlike:
> 
> Maintainer: Morten Kjeldgaard (https://launchpad.net/~mok0)

I don't think that's the right direction.
In Ubuntu we don't have maintainer, as in Debian Language. We do care
alltogether for all universe/multiverse packages (and in the future
even main/restricted in theory).

That was the plan from the beginning. 

> 
> > The last resort is always a removal of this package in question, if
> > it's not already in debian...
> 
> Not having an active maintainer is not the same as the package not
> being interesting and valuable.

I know what you mean, but that's one problem with people who are only
interested into bringing their piece of software into ubuntu.

Why they do this? Because it's much easier to push their software into
Ubuntu then it is in Debian. And we commited ourselves to this
workflow.
If we would change our attitude, we could easily remove REVU and we
wouldn't allow any drive-by package maintainers to push their software
into Ubuntu.

> invented
> > I don't see why we should change this?
> 
> That's what Microsoft's programmers said about their missing TCP
> stack before Bill Gates discovered the Internet in 1998 ;-)

Sure. But you can do only one thing...prevent Ubuntu from being flooded
by drive-by packagers, or leave it as is, and deal with it.

> (*) Furthermore, MOTUs maintain 1301 packages with local Ubuntu
> changes.

Oh yes...since we had this "Ping the last uploader" rule during merge
time, the upload ratio decreased a lot. Agreed. And as people will get
older, and do have other, different tasks to do, the upload ratio will
decrease even more. We need more people, we need fresh blood, we need
new people, who will stay for more then only a release cycle.

Regards,

\sh

PS: please reply only to the ML...thx :)

-- 
| Stephan '\sh' Hermann    | OSS Dev / SysAdmin         |
| JID: sh at linux-server.org | http://www.sourcecode.de/  | 
| GPG ID: 0xC098EFA8	   | http://leonov.tv/          |
| FP: 3D8B 5138 0852 DA7A B83F DCCB C189 E733 C098 EFA8 |