Hello, On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 09:29:28PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Of course, it'd be good to *read* the RFP bug before retitling it, etc, > which would have provided you with the information I wrote about in my > prior email- specifically that there's a number of other people working > on slony packaging already and there's specific and good reasons why it > hasn't already been uploaded to the archive.
It's unfortunate that I mis-typed the version number. I meant to file an ITP for Slony1-1.1.0, and not Slony1-1.1.1. This version of Slony will not require the postgresql source tree to build. Perhaps there are a bunch of people still working to package Slony1-1.0.5 (it's not clear to me one way or another from the bug report). I do know that Oliver doesn't have time for it, as he's told me this himself. I'm not interested in packaging that version anyway, I want to package Slony1-1.1.0. Are there a bunch of people working on packaging this version also? Again, it's not clear from the existing bug report who's working on what. My ITP for Slony1-1.1.0 really ought to have remained open with a friendly pointer to the RFP bug against Slony1-1.0.5. Instead, you've decided to close my ITP bug and referred me to a bug report which doesn't really have much to do with Slony1-1.1.0. On top of that, you've just treated someone who was just trying to contribute to Debian like an idiot. > I don't particularly care who ends up maintaining the package but it's > more than a little annoying to have someone not read the documentation, > prior bug reports, or apparently even look for prior bugs and then be > bitched out by what I'm guessing was your boss on IRC for pointing out > to you the existing bug report and why it hadn't been uploaded yet. srbaker is not my boss. He's a Debian developer and old friend who has offered to help me package Slony. If you don't understand his frustration, then you really ought to re-read your comments on my ITP bug report. Again, a friendly pointer to the existing RFP for Slony1-1.0.5 was all that was necessary. > As an additional tidbit- it'd probably be best to wait till the 8.0 debs > are in Debian before putting the slony packages in to avoid what will > probably be a great deal of ugliness in the transistion from one > packaging methodology to another in the main Postgres packaging. The > 8.0 debs are already in experimental, they're mainly waiting for sarge > to be released before going into sid because of the libpq SONAME bump. That sounds like good advice. Thanks for the heads-up. Tim > > Thanks, > > Stephen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
