Hello Russ, On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 05:22, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > Sandro Tosi <[email protected]> writes: > >> Ok, probably I didn't express myself clearly enough. you are talking >> about the future, when python will have co-maintainers (python*-default >> already has them), am I correct? > > Right, yes. > >> I was referring instead to the current situation where python*-default >> has co-maintainers while python interpreter packages still has not. It >> seems to me that Matthias is still the key to make the architecture >> works, since he controls interpreters and co-control (horrible >> expression) the *-default, so without his ack (and so public discussion >> when needed) we are stuck. > > I agree with the statement that maintainers of those packages need to be > active in these discussions and be clear about what their requirements are > and not block other work that's going on in Debian. I'm uncomfortable > with the degree of personalization of the problem at present, although I > do realize what some of the history behind that is.
I hope we also expressed some general aspects (above personalization) of the problem, from a technical POV, not only feelings and such. >> Probably it's also my fault in hoping things would have solved by >> themselves and I've brought this to the CTTE too late, but please also >> consider I've joined the debian-python after the 2006 (and like me many >> others), so where all the problem origins tracks back. But the problem >> is still actual, I think. > > But you do seem to agree that it's getting better? Yes the situation is lightly better, and thanks to Scott and Piotr that devoted a huge amount of time in pleasing Matthias with all his requests before being accepted as co-maints, time that could have been better invested in some actual work. that said, am I unhappy of the situation? yes. am I going to shut up and simply let the things be adjusted in private conversations/agreements and then face the same problems in a year? sorry, no. I consider a challenge to find a proper solution (sorry we appealed to CTTE for this task) but we should guarantee a steady resolution to this mess, once and for all, whatever it is. > The problems were deep > and aren't going to be solved overnight, and I agree that we don't want to > stall short of a solution, but I think it's important to recognize that > the situation is improving (if it is). Yes, it is, but I don't consider that the ultimate solution. We have now comaints for python*-defaults and an updated policy, and it's a huge leap forward, but we have not done yet. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
