Hi Jan, Peter and everyone subscribed, as you probably followed on the mentors list, I uploaded new packages to m-d-n and submitted a request for sponsorship in June. Three people replied to my request, one of which actually had suggestions on what to improve about the packages. I appreciate that and tried to fix some of the problems in a second upload.
There also were comments on the quality of the egroupware (upstream) codebase, its maintainability, and why it should be dropped from debian. Those were kind of surprising to me. Egroupware has been included in debian before and I didn't expect such strong resentments against a re-inclusion. I think, that there are two kinds of objections, which I tried to outline in my email on June 21st: <snip> - Objections related to the packages themselves: Those mainly arise from the fact, that Peter had invested *a lot* of work into the packaging process, some of which I might not have perfectly understood from the beginning. Thus for example I removed the watch file - not knowing, that lintian will complain in --pedantic mode. Also I acknowledged Peter's work, when I ignored most of the lintian warnings originating from his packages. "If they were included before" - so I thought - "they can't be that important". Partially I still believe that if they weren't a big show stopper before, they shouldn't be now. However I intend to fix them over the time of continuous maintenance. - Objections related to the package's content: The egroupware suite Here I disagree with those claiming egroupware was not suitable for inclusion as such. </snip> For the last couple of months I did not follow the issue of debian inclusion. I am still willing to do the work. However, as I am neither debian nor egroupware developer, I cannot debate the upstream codebase. If there's enough interest in egroupware on debians side, all it takes is some hints like "fix this, fix that". I'm also confident, that in most cases the egroupware folks are willing to fix upstream issues. If however the debian policy cannot permit egroupware upstream code into debian, then I wont be able to fix that. I can try to pass the messages between debian and egroupware, but it would be way more productive, if upstream issues could be solved by direct communication. To bring the whole thing forward, we could try to agree on the following: - Debian agrees whether its policy is compatible with egroupware upstream code. - If so, I will collect all issues related to the packaging (unmentioned licenses, watch file, unmentioned authors). A couple of them also seems to stem from changes in lintian, and might just be new. - Afterwards I will build new packages fixing the packaging errors and upload them to m-d-n. Theres a lot for me to learn during the process. "This will be a lot of work" is not an issue for me, as long as the overall perspective is to end up with high quality packages (included in debian). Best Regards, Lars Am 29.09.2010 21:40, schrieb Peter Eisentraut: > On ons, 2010-09-29 at 18:46 +0200, Jan Wagner wrote: >> Hi Lars, >> >> On Monday, 3. May 2010, Lars Volker wrote: >>> I've uploaded the new packages to m-d-n and I'd be glad, if one of you >>> could have a look at them. Especially I'm looking forward to hear from >>> Peter again. >> >> even if it would be too late for squeeze, is there any progress on the >> packaging? I did realize, that 1.8 is coming around the corner. > > I think Lars Volker is doing the packaging, but is looking for a > sponsor/mentor in Debian. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
