Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

Chris.Giles · 2010-02-10 20:58:24

I was maintaining the 'dpkg' package until recently, but it has mysteriously been awarded to someone else. I've been commenting for months that I'd be staying with the stable branch. I chose not to update this PKGBUILD, as v1.4.25 was still listed as the current stable release in my web browser.

Someone else has now become the maintainer of this package, but I wasn't notified by anyone that he intended to steal it from me. I want to know which TU reassigned this package to him, without bothering to contact me first. It will be interesting to see if you've got the balls to reveal this information and reverse the unwarranted change.

wonder · 2010-02-10 21:06:16

somebody asked on aur-general ml to orphaned it. Basically that guy said you never contacted him.

http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/ … 08125.html

drcouzelis · 2010-02-10 21:35:17

That's an interesting situation. I don't know anything about it, but I bet the new maintainer of "dpkg" wouldn't even mind giving it back to you, judging by their post on the "dephelper" page:

raubkopierer wrote:

You also could drop me a mail if you want to maintain dpkg yourself.

...but that's only my opinion.

I am curious how you know what the current version of dpkg is. I don't understand what you mean by "v1.4.25 was still listed as the current stable release in my web browser". The Debian package page lists a bunch of versions http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=dpkg and the Wikipedia says the current version is 1.15.0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpkg

I'm just curious. I don't use dpkg.

fukawi2 · 2010-02-10 22:35:15

Chris.Giles wrote:

I want to know which TU reassigned this package to him, without bothering to contact me first. It will be interesting to see if you've got the balls to reveal this information and reverse the unwarranted change.

The process is transparent -- you can clearly see on the ML that Stefan orphaned it. There's no need to abuse TU's and other people who are asking for the latest version of a package in a bleeding-edge distribution. As Stefan mentioned -- you had time to unflag the package out of date, but not to add a quick courtesy note explaining your position...?

Chris.Giles · 2010-02-11 03:59:46

Thanks for the prompt responses. I got his email, which didn't explain why he needed the 'dpkg' package to be updated in such a hurry. I wasn't told that the 'debhelper' package depended on a newer release.

I've had many people ask me to update 'dpkg', after they obviously didn't bother to read my earlier comments. I got tired of replying to everyone that notified me of updates to the 'testing' and 'unstable' branches.

That's why I simply unflagged its outdated status, without bothering to write yet another response about why I'd chosen to stay with the 'stable' branch. Since I wasn't told the full story, I don't think my reactions were subpar.

jowilkin · 2010-02-11 04:32:08

Looks like dpkg stable has been > 1.4.25 for a long time, you don't have much of an argument here.

Xyne · 2010-02-11 04:35:37

The packages can't be build because the sauce isn't on the servers...

Welcome to Archan.

Chris.Giles · 2010-02-11 07:00:22

Until yesterday, every time that I refreshed the webpage, it stated that v1.14.25 was the current 'stable' release.

Like Xyne, I was surprised to see that the new maintainer of the package referred to programmatic 'sauce' code.

Last edited by Chris.Giles (2010-02-11 07:01:00)

.:B:. · 2010-02-11 07:15:26

And the past tense of build is build, amirite?

raubkopierer · 2010-02-11 07:29:51

It wasn't my intention to 'steal' the package from you and I'm sorry if I left you wih that impression.
drcouzelis is right: I don't mind to give the package back to you if you want.

But at least I have to make some points clear: I've sent you a mail to notify you that the package is outdated. I think it's the right decision to stay with the latest stable of dpkg in lenny but this latest version is 1.14.28 since the 12th january afaik. The package was only orphaned because 'someone' unflagged the package out-of-date and I already notified you. And in the end the only reason I made that request that soon was the somebody who unflagged the dpkg packege. And the hurry was that the source of your version wasn't on the mirror in the pkgbuild for some weeks.

drcouzelis wrote:

I am curious how you know what the current version of dpkg is.

The latest version is 1.15.0. But the latest version in the stable branch of debian is 1.14.28. I think the most users that are interested in this package use it to pack debs for debian so this version is the right one in my opinion.

Last edited by raubkopierer (2010-02-11 07:35:31)

Chris.Giles · 2010-02-11 08:31:15

Yes, please orphan the package and I'll reclaim it. I already gave responses to the new points that you've raised in my earlier postings.

raubkopierer · 2010-02-11 08:56:07

Chris.Giles wrote:

Yes, please orphan the package and I'll reclaim it. I already gave responses to the new points that you've raised in my earlier postings.

here you go. remember ctrl + f5 and so on

Chris.Giles · 2010-02-11 09:13:11

I think that's probably the moral of the story: my cache wasn't expiring frequently enough and I should've performed more 'hard' refreshes. Thanks for your assistance and I apologise for any inconvenience that my delayed initial response may have caused.

Stefan Husmann · 2010-02-11 10:43:06

I hope all misunderstandings are cleared now. I did not want to offend anybody. Chris, keep up your work.

ngoonee · 2010-02-11 12:07:35

Chris.Giles wrote:

I think that's probably the moral of the story: my cache wasn't expiring frequently enough and I should've performed more 'hard' refreshes. Thanks for your assistance and I apologise for any inconvenience that my delayed initial response may have caused.

Interesting, how long a period of time do you think this occured for? When I wish to track releases via webpages I normally use the 'Update Scanner' plugin on Firefox.

Chris.Giles · 2010-02-11 20:23:39

I suppose it could've been happening for several days. I didn't think there'd be a problem, since I don't use a proxy server. The Firefox addon that you've mentioned looks quite good.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-02-10 20:58:24

Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#2 2010-02-10 21:06:16

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#3 2010-02-10 21:35:17

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#4 2010-02-10 22:35:15

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#5 2010-02-11 03:59:46

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#6 2010-02-11 04:32:08

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#7 2010-02-11 04:35:37

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#8 2010-02-11 07:00:22

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#9 2010-02-11 07:15:26

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#10 2010-02-11 07:29:51

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#11 2010-02-11 08:31:15

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#12 2010-02-11 08:56:07

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#13 2010-02-11 09:13:11

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#14 2010-02-11 10:43:06

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#15 2010-02-11 12:07:35

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

#16 2010-02-11 20:23:39

Re: Please reassign the 'dpkg' package back to me

Board footer