27.10.2015 02:27, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015 00:01:18 +0200 Francesco Poli wrote: > > [...] >> Michael, I am not sure I understand what happened: I don't see any >> recent NMUs for package mdadm, hence I cannot see how d-i developers >> could "throw your work away". >> >> Anyway, the last resort strategy to address your disagreement with the >> d-i developers could be referring it to the technical committee, as >> Paul seems to suggest... >> But, before doing so, I would try hard to talk to the d-i developers >> and solve the disagreement in the most amicable way. > > Michael, could you please clarify? > What are going to do in order to solve this unfortunate "conflict"?
I asked the technical commitee during jessie freeze, asked this exact question, what right has the d-i team to reject my non-d-i-related changes and why my (hard in this case) work has to be removed. The reply come way too late, so my work which I made for jessie has been lost. And it actually didn't answer my question, instead addressing me back to the d-i team where I come from. This was about busybox. I asked to at least remove my name from the released version in jessie, because I can't be blamed for not doing something, -- even that small wish weren't fullfilled (maybe because this might break something?). >From that time, and I mentioned that multiple times, I can't work on any package which produces d-i component, because d-i team throws my work away without any good reason. They're producing next alpha release of stretch installer these days, which means udebs (d-i components) are frozen again (or so I understand), and mdadm is one of them (which provides a piece of d-i to deal with software raid during install time). I'm not maintaining mdadm anymore. I'm not maintaining any piece which produces udebs. Because I can't. I'm not the only one person in this world who can do this. Debian is made entirely by volunteers. Someone should step in and try their own luck here, maybe they'll more productive. I'm sorry for making this bug. But now I can't and wont do anything with it, because this involves another process of communicating things with the d-i team, which I definitely wont do. And I expressed this multiple times already. >> Otherwise, if you are absolutely unwilling to continue maintaining the >> mdadm Debian package (as I said, I hope you reconsider!), then I think >> you should officially search for someone willing to adopt the package... Yes, that's what I'm saying. Maybe someone else will have more luck working with the d-i team. Or the technical committee. > I really hope you change your mind and begin to maintain the mdadm > Debian package again. But, if you don't and you are absolutely > unwilling to touch mdadm again, then you should formally state your > decision and search for someone to adopt the package. I don't know how to "formally" state my descision. Debian knows about it, d-i team knows about it, technical committee knows about it. I wont _upload_ any new mdadm release (so that my name wont be listed in the control file) because of the reasons already stated above. I can't change the maintainer, because I'm not listed as maintainer, it is a team-maintained package (where I'm just one of the members, tho only one active member in 2 recent years). I asked, honestly, to at least remove my name from the busybox package for jessie (where I'm also the only one active maintainer for a some years), even that weren't made. No, I don't know how to "state" this. Someone can make an nmu with my name removed and maybe the bug fixed, I dunno. Maybe the d-i team can do that after all (Cc'ing them). I wont, and again, I stated this multiple times. Thanks, /mjt
