Bug#906505: qlandkartegt: FTBFS in buster/sid (unable to find string literal operator)

[Stuart Prescott]

Hi Sebastiaan,

On Sunday, 26 August 2018 10:29:43 AEST Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> On 8/26/18 10:17 AM, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> >>>> No one in the Debian GIS team is willing to maintain this EOL package
> >>>> any longer, qmapshack is were we invest our effort.
> >>> 
> >>> Please file a WNPP bug that orphans qlandkarte. That signals to others
> >>> that
> >>> they can (and should) take over maintenance of the package.
> >>> 
> >>> §5.9.4 of the Developers Reference covers the case where the existing
> >>> maintainers are unwilling to maintain a package any longer:
> >>> 
> >>> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#orp
> >>> ha
> >>> ning
> >> 
> >> No, EOL software should be removed. The QA team is not the place for EOL
> >> and broken packages.
> >> 
> >> The removal of qlandkartegt was a long time coming, since it's been
> >> superseded by qmapshack in Debian and upstream, this issue was just the
> >> trigger.
> > 
> > If you really believe that, the correct course of action is an RM bug.
> > wontfix on an RC bug still isn't right.
> 
> If you really cared, you would have checked and seen that one already
> exists.

My apologies, I had actually checked, but missed it.

> > More generally, though, there is plenty of software that is Debian without
> > an active upstream but with active maintainers keeping it alive. Dead
> > upstream's aren't a problem for Debian; it's dead upstreams coupled with
> > inactive maintainers. It's fine for you to decide that you don't want to
> > be that maintainer, but it's not your call to stand in the way of others
> > who do want to do this work.
> 
> I am the only active maintainer of this package, it *is* my call to tell
> others that I will not fix this issue because the software is EOL.

Except that is absolutely not what I said.

You get to make calls about your time, that's fine. You don't get to say that 
other maintainers aren't allowed to maintain this package but that is what 
you're doing.

> People that want to fix this package know what to do, get involved in
> upstream development and take over maintenance of the package.
> 
> I care more about the quality of Debian than to keep broken packages
> that have no future in Debian.
> 
> So far no one has stepped up to revive QLandkarteGT upstream
> development, it just a lot of empty talk and no action.

My point is that no-one knows that it needs action because there is no RFH, 
RFA or O bug.

> Stop talking out of your ass, and get off it to revive upstream
> development if you really care about the future of this package.

*sigh* That's completely out of line. 

You can't complain that others aren't doing work when they don't know that the 
work is required and where you are actively blocking that work.

* Today was the first I knew that you weren't planning to continue to maintain 
it. I follow O/RFA/RFH bugs in packages I use for *precisely* this sort of 
situation where help is needed. There is no bug filed and my mind-reading kit 
was yet to pick up your request for assistance.

* The lack of O/RFA bug means that to do anything here, I must first hijack 
the package. That's not how we normally do things. Your course of action means 
that even though I *am* considering taking this package on, I am required to 
act in a way that is not normally acceptable in Debian.

You're also asking me to suddenly take on this code base with a whole 2 hours 
notice. Please don't be surprised that I've not yet agreed to do so or that 
generating so much stop energy discourages people from doing so.

Stuart


-- 
Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart at nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart at debian.org
GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7