Steve Langasek wrote: > No, because it's no longer an objective measure of whether the > maintenance of the package is adequate. Your definition of "adequate" > maintenance is now based on how Debian is doing *compared to* Ubuntu, > which is not a standard that would be used anywhere else!
You are skewing my arguments in a way that I find distasteful. The basic point in my mails was that there is a maintainer who is responsible for Python in both Debian and Ubuntu, and while the Ubuntu packaging has made progress, the Debian packaging *over a substantial period of time* has not while that maintainer has also not participated on the debian-python mailing list. The conclusion in the first mail was that that maintainer is apparently no longer sufficiently motivated to perform his responsibilities as the maintainer of a core package in Debian. The reasons are secondary, but IMO there definitely is a pattern that when DDs get employed by Canonical they get so swamped with Ubuntu work that Debian gets pushed to the background. I've also said that I have no problem with that - people do lose motivation or simply don't have the spare time anymore for any number of reasons. But I do feel that someone in that specific position should do the right thing and step down as lead maintainer for the Debian package which would immediately free him to do whatever he wants for Ubuntu (although collaboration with the Debian Python maintainers would of course still be a very good thing). It would also break the current deadlock for Debian by enabling others within Debian to step in and push Python forward for Debian. I have no problem with Ubuntu being ahead for shortish periods of time on anything. And when there are *different maintainers* of a package for the two distributions there is no hard obligation for Ubuntu to actively push back to Debian. But when you have a core package maintained by one and the same person, I do think that that person has a moral obligation to maintain his package as well and as timely for Debian as he does for Ubuntu. Given all the loud noise made by Canonical about collaboration and giving back, I also think that Canonical (more than any other random employer) has a responsibility to actively avoid leaving Debian in the kind of deadlock we currently have for Python. > If you don't believe this is true, then why are we having this > discussion about python, and not about: Because those are utterly different cases. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
