On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, Ola Lundqvist wrote: > I have raised this question before, but now I'm a bit frustrated.
I think you will get a LOT more frustated on this issue. Let me give you a friendly advice: don't take it personally (it probably isn't, anyway), and go through the policy procedures or a RFC to resolve the issue. > I want to have contact with a ftp maintainer or some other > person. The thing is that I have two source packages with Try IRC, you might have more luck there. But I warn you this is NOT going to help from what I know about how these things work around here. You will most likely hear what you don't want to. > -rw-r--r-- 1 opal Debian 4450 Nov 14 03:17 > java-compiler-dummy_0.8_all.deb > -rw-r--r-- 1 opal Debian 4256 Nov 14 03:17 > java-virtual-machine-dummy_0.8_all.deb > -rw-r--r-- 1 opal Debian 2424 Nov 14 03:17 > java1-runtime-dummy_0.8_all.deb > -rw-r--r-- 1 opal Debian 1522 Nov 14 03:12 > java2-compiler-dummy_0.1_all.deb > -rw-r--r-- 1 opal Debian 1546 Nov 14 03:12 > java2-runtime-dummy_0.1_all.deb > > These packages are quite important because they describe the > proposed java policy which is some kind of guideline for how > to package java packages. They also provide some dummy packages The problem is, from what I've read around, that key people do NOT agree with the -dummy stuff. So the ftp admins are not accepting the upload. And that is holding down the rest of the stuff. I suggest you get the 'java minipolicy' that proposes this -dummy stuff, summarize the key threads that lead to that policy (pay special attention to the posts that did NOT agree with the proposed solutions), and post an RFC to -devel. Either that, or do it through debian-policy to get the java minipolicy into policy itself. BTW, this is more or less proper procedure. If anyone objects to a policy change (and yes, mini-policies are included in this), you HAVE to deal with it or the policy proposal is not accepted and stays in limbo. And the person objecting the changes need not be key people to get the change tossed in the wastebasket; anyone can do that. If the RFC thread fails to give you a good enough response from the project (and mind you, I certainly do not mean a response you want to hear -- I mean a firm, public standing one way or the other), there are other methods you can employ. But I don't think it will go this far (and those other methods won't resolve the issue fast, either). > How can this be resolved? See above. > Is the ftpadmins MIA? No. They are overworked as always, I am sure. But hardly MIA. > Or is there simply a problem with their mail so they do not > get what I'm sending them? (both a bug and a mail). Dunno. I am not one of them... > response from any ftpadmin about what I should do? Don't wait for their reply. At least one person sent you a clue of what might be happening -- I know that for a fact, because I certainly read what I repeated on the first paragraph of this email somewhere, and that somewhere was a public Debian forum (even if I can't recall which). Do what they require from you: either get a lot of people to agree with you and deal with all objections, as per the proper policy process, or remove the -dummy packages which seem to be the contentious issue. BTW, I have not read the java mini-policy, nor have I "choosen" sides re. this issue. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
