Bug#906505: qlandkartegt: FTBFS in buster/sid (unable to find string literal operator)
sebastic at xs4all.nl
Sun Aug 26 11:21:42 BST 2018
On 8/26/18 11:02 AM, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> 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
>>>>> 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:
>>>> 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 superseded by qmapshack in Debian and upstream, this issue was just the
>>> 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
> 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.
Sigh. You're quite hopeless. I never said that other maintainers aren't
allowed to maintain this package.
Your hypothetical maintainers willing to maintain this package haven't
joined the GIS team or offered to take over the package.
Still lots of talk and no action.
>> 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.
There is no need to help, nor adoption, the package will be removed
because upstream development stopped in favour of qmapshack. Hence the
RM bug to remove the package. We kept it in Debian as long as it was
still somewhat functioning, but the it was never fully functional since
the switch to Qt5.
The only action required is for FTP masters to remove this package, that
will resolve this bugreport. In the mean time the wontfix tag indicates
that this bug will not be fixed by the maintainer.
>> 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.
Again, there is no need to assistance, there is need for upstream
You should add RM bugs to your list of things to follow.
> * 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.
Sigh, again. There is no need to hijack, the package is team maintained,
joining the team is also an option. But the package doesn't lack
maintainers, it lacks upstream development.
> 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.
Your energy is better spend elsewhere, like getting familiar with
qmapshack so you can let go of your emotional attachment to qlandkartegt.
More information about the Pkg-grass-devel