[SCM] glmark2/master: RFP/ITP bug #695849 assigned

Reinhard Tartler siretart at gmail.com
Thu Jan 3 13:32:19 UTC 2013

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Dmitry Smirnov <onlyjob at member.fsf.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 00:02:12 Reinhard Tartler wrote:

>> >> b) It is not backed up by some other pkg-multimedia team member.
>> >
>> > Please help me to understand -- because I'm not sure what package you're
>> > talking about. Do we need at least one team member to back it up?
>> > Or would you insist on minimum two members?
>> Yes, I do really think that *every* package in pkg-multimedia should
>> have *at least* two *active* team members in the Uploaders field.
>> Everything else indicates that not enough developers in the team care
>> for the package, which in the end is harmful for pkg-multimedia. We
>> already a pretty bad maintainer per package ratio, and adding more
>> poorly-maintained packages does not help at all.
> OK, thanks for explaining. I have two concerns though.
> This package is not uploaded so it does not affect maintainer per package
> ratio. Not yet.

It does becaus it already uses team ressources:
a) mailing list (commit logs, etc.)
b) clutters the list on http://git.debian.org
c) is already processed by PET: http://pet.debian.net/pkg-multimedia/pet.cgi

BTW, c) is how I came aware of the package: ansgar pinged on irc that
the contained watch file confuses PET, so I implemented his

> It doesn't make any sense to move package repository to collab-maint whenever
> there is less than two active maintainers. Wouldn't we push less active
> packages away from pkg-multimedia like this?

Yes, and I think this is desireable if we do not want pkg-multimedia
to deter to "some other multimedia-related Debian QA"-group. Let's
please leave that for the proper Debian QA group.

> You're talking about desirable (ideal) situation.

I'm not sure if I understand this comment.

>> > It feels a bit like "finish it or leave"... Speaking about finishing, did
>> > you have a chance to try it? Do you think it is useful despite failure
>> > of some opengl (but not opengl-es) tests? If so I'm happy to own ITP
>> > even though it might not be a right time for me.
>> Sorry, I neither have time nor interest to investigate glmark2, nor do
>> I find glmark2 particularly in scope of pkg-multimedia. Moreover, the
>> svn-buildpackage style packaging already deterred me enough to refrain
>> me to take a closer look.
> Sorry Reinhard, I didn't know you feel so strong about it. Of course I'll move
> the package to collab-maint if you insist. Otherwise I'll convert its
> repository to git-buildpackage layout so we can decide whenever we want it in
> pkg-multimedia. Thanks.

It's not that I really "insist" on something. I'm wondering what is
the best way to go with the package. While not uploaded yet, it
already does consume considerable team ressources, and since it seems
that nobody else in the team is interested in the package, I feel that
you would have less effort with leaving the packaging style as it is
and just move the repository to collab-maint.

Sorry if my previous mails on the package were too harsh. I strongly
suspect that we have a number of other packages within the team with
the same issues as glmark2. Nevertheless, I do not intend to play the
"team police" game proactively, but only when I stumble upon (obvious)
problems in problematic package. I would appreciate if other active
team members would join this effort.

Happy new year! :-)


More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list