[tryton-debian] Future of the Tryton suite in Debian

[Mathias Behrle]

* Raphael Hertzog: " Re: [tryton-debian] Future of the Tryton suite in
  Debian" (Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:38:09 +0200):

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> > So although it's off-topic: Could you please stop lecturing me with
> > this attitude about opensource. I don't appreciate that. Thank you.  
> 
> Agreed. I also find Mathias response a bit too passive-aggressive.
> Mathias, you might not have intended it that way but it came out that
> way.

Raphael, sorry, but that goes way too far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive%E2%80%93aggressive_personality_disorder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

You may want to adjust the classification of your answer and please
particularly point to the sentence you qualify aggressive instead of just being
a fact.

> > Anyway, let's get productive. I decided to scratch my own itch and to
> > fix https://bugs.debian.org/889041 and thus I inspired myself from one
> > of your package to create the package for the notification email
> > module. You can find the result of dpkg-buildpackage there:
> > 
> >    http://www.b2ck.com/~nicoe/debian/
> > 
> > I have a question regarding your packaging: I followed the maint-guide
> > to understand the use of each file yet I did not find a reference to
> > the directory 'upstream' which contains a set of PGP signatures thus I
> > removed it from my own debian dir.  
> 
> The debian/upstream/signing-key.asc file can be used by "uscan" to
> validade the GPG signature on upstream tarballs, see its manual page for
> details. I would suggest to keep it.
> 
> I have not looked at your package but I hope that Mathias is willing to
> do it. If not, let me know and I will consider sponsoring your package.

A short look to the package shows:

- Wrong Depends
- Wrong Suggests
- Closes RFP instead of ITP
- Probably not lintian clean (I didn't do that as well, but the package long
  description contains 'allows' instead of 'allows one')
- and of course the missing/deleted upstream keys, but pgpsigurlmangle in the
  watch file

I hope it is understandable, that I will refrain from reviewing further
versions (just as indicated in the original mail of this thread which I beg
to repect). 

PS: 
If it is intended to include the module in the backports and expected that
I should do the maintenance with the rest of the suite it is essential to
provide a git repos (preferably on salsa.debian.org, it should be easy to get an
account) which matches exactly the branching layout of the existing modules.
Otherwise please remove from Uploaders.

I don't plan to sponsor the package, Raphael, please go ahead.

Thanks,
Mathias



-- 

    Mathias Behrle ✧ Debian Developer
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6