[Pkg-roundcube-maintainers] roundcube in backports

[Dominik George]

Hi Guilhem,

first of all, sorry for any confusion, as far as I could have prevented
it (asking more than once, seeking other channels, etc.); I made the
best effort my time allowed for.

> | Would have appreciated some discussion with us maintainers before
> | unilaterally(?) uploading bpo10.  Uploading (and committing to maintain)
> | a team-maintained backport has been discussed last February on
> | pkg-roundcube-maintainers; we thought we'd get there but IIRC there was
> | one package to upload to bpo10 and a few more things to check first.  I
> | personally haven't given up on that.

A team-maintained backport is better, of course, and I am still very
open to pushing the branch to Salsa and team-maintaining it there.

> We had difficulties in the past with keeping Roundcube up to shape for
> backports.  Upstream more stable now so as I wrote in February I'm
> willing to give it another shot, but backports is about committing to
> follow the state of what we package maintainers upload to sid once it
> transitions to testing, not about uploading a single version.

I know that, and this is exactly what we need to do at Teckids anyway.
With a high level of data protection requirements, we have a strict
policy to only use Debian stable on production servers, with the
exception of bpo if packages in stable lack more usability than we can
spare our users ( which was the case with Roundcube 1.3 due to the
complete lack of usability on mobile devices). We do track those
packages and keep them updated locally, and always follow Debian policy
and bpo ruels doing so, so as a matter of fact we already fully target
official backports and not uploading (after trying to coordinate with
the original maintainers) would not have a single benefit for anyone.

Actually, with the exception of roundcube, we currently team-maintain
all those backports, and in most cases have also started to help with
package maintenance in sid as well as targeted security and RC bugfixing
in stable-p-u.

So, even though I understand your argumentation pretty well, I am calso
very confident that I know what I were doing ;).

> Either I'm unable to find the March 30 message where you're asking for
> our opinion, and I find it rather rude to act, even 10 days later,
> without a ping.

Yep, I could have tried harder, but I also had wished for more open
packaging (e.g. not disabling the button for requesting team access on
Salsa, using a mailing list that adhered to the Debian mailing list
whitelist,… — I know it is not really your fault, but having to wait 10
days for some benevolent moderator as a DD to use a priamry
communication channel for talking to my colleagues somehow pisses me off
a bit, and that is a general issue in Debian).

> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 20:04:17 +0200, Dominik George wrote:
> > I am backporting roundcube 1.4.3 for our buster-based infrastructure at
> > Teckids.
> 
> Sorry for the delay, seems that your message got stuck, moderated or
> something :-/  Must say I was pretty annoyed to see the upload without
> coming forward to pkg-roundcube-maintainers, but I now see you did, cool
> and thanks :-)  (Even though you didn't address the message I sent
> between your REJECTED upload and the ACCEPTED one.)

Oh yes, that was not on purpose. I had the upload fixed and the dput
command sitting there before your message, and later foudn that I forgot
to hit enter and then just did ;).


In any case, the roundcube backport has been in production for two weeks
now, and so far noone found any issue with it.

If you grant me access on Salsa, I will ofcourse import it into a git
branch, and commit to maintaining it there at least until the release of
bullseye.

-nik