Hi Thanks for the reply. I do not take it personal and actually I appriciate it. :)
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:03:55PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > 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. First of all it is not a true policy, and should not be seen as a such, yet. Well I thought I have done that... I'll try to describe it here. Long time ago the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list was created for java packaging and more. Back then it was Stephane Bortzmeyer who was the policy author. Now I have take over the packages and also the proposed java policy. As I have understood the list was created because all people did not want to have java discussions on debian-devel and so I kept the discussions on [EMAIL PROTECTED] See more below. > > 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. I see. > > -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. Well that is a interesting thing. Right now theese packages do already exist in the archive. Well not all of them, but some: http://packages.debian.org/java-compiler-dummy http://packages.debian.org/java-virtual-machine So the new ones is java1-runtime-dummy, java2-compiler-dummy, java2-runtime-dummy. > 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. Well almost the only one on [EMAIL PROTECTED] who did not want the dummy packages is myself. Personaly I have no problem with removing them but lot of other people seems to have. > 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. Well that is true. The thing is that the proposed policy was changed to handle java2 as well as java1 and then there was a need for more dummy packages. But if people wants to toss them away I have no problem with 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). Must RFC things be held on debian-devel or where should I put it? Regards, // Ola > > How can this be resolved? > See above. I'll happily remove the dummy stuff. But probably some java maintainers will grunt... :) > > Is the ftpadmins MIA? > No. They are overworked as always, I am sure. But hardly MIA. That sounds good to hear. I recieved a mail who said he thought they were MIA. I did not really believe it so I asked (here). > > 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... Ok. > > 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). I know that fact too. I replied with my arguments but did not get any further replies. > 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. Well that is interesting. On debian-java people want the -dummy and on other places they do not want it. Anyway I'll remove it if that is what it takes. > BTW, I have not read the java mini-policy, nor have I "choosen" sides re. > this issue. Finally I want to thank you for your reply. I really appriciate it. I also hope that you do not take it personal either. I just want to state my arguments. :) Regards, // Ola > -- > "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 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- --------------------- Ola Lundqvist --------------------------- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING | | +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---------------------------------------------------------------
pgpqao2nT5vzg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
