[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#658341: marked as done (upload of multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy))

Your message dated Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:29:39 -0800
with message-id <20120225002939.GB30511@rzlab.ucr.edu>
and subject line Re: Bug#658341: Conclusion: upload multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)
has caused the Debian Bug report #658341,
regarding upload of multi-arch enabled dpkg (in time for wheezy)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
658341: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658341
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: serious

Dear members of the Technical Committee,
  I hereby submit to your attention the "dpkg multi-arch conflict".
I believe the issue is well-known, so I describe it only briefly below;
feel free to ask if you need more information.


A multi-arch [1] enabled version of dpkg has been available for quite a
while. Its inclusion in the archive has been one of the early Wheezy
release goals. Since many months now, the upload of such a version of
dpkg has been held back due to repeated NACK-s by one of the dpkg
co-maintainers (Guillem Jover, Cc-ed), based on his desire to do a full
code review of the multi-arch implementation, which has written by the
other dpkg co-maintainer (Raphael Hertzog, Cc-ed as well).

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/MultiArch

The desire to do a full code review is good, but Guillem doesn't seem to
be able to complete the review in a reasonable time frame. Since many
months now, the delay of the upload is a cause of worry for the release
team [2] and other project members. The situation has escalated to the
point that another developer (Cyril Brulebois) has done a dpkg NMU a
couple of days ago [3]; the NMU has been promptly reverted by Guillem
[4].

[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2011/10/msg00050.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/01/msg00049.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/02/msg00000.html


As DPL, I'm worried about two aspects of this issue:

a) The risk of legitimating the fact that by not acting a developer can
   block indefinitely the work of other developers (and possibly of the
   entire project when working on a rather far reaching release goal);
   I've elaborated more on this subject 3 months ago in [5].

   [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2011/10/msg00060.html

b) The risk of a negative impact on project morale if---due to the
   reason above rather than a legitimate technical reason---we will miss
   the Wheezy multi-arch release goal.


I therefore bring before you the issue of whether:

- one of the dpkg co-maintainers has the right to block indefinitely a
  dpkg upload, in wait of full code review of the multi-arch code;

- or rather if the other co-maintainer has the right to override his
  NACKs and go ahead with uploads that would allow project-wide testing
  of the dpkg multi-arch implementation.


Many thanks in advance for your help,
Cheers.


PS I've to point out that timing on this issue is, unfortunately,
   critical. The Wheezy freeze is close and according to the release
   team we're already late wrt the ideal upload date for dpkg. The delay
   is not tech-ctte's fault, of course, but please understand that a
   long decision time on your part would be a de facto decision. I'd
   appreciate if you could reach a decision on this in a timely manner.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, 05 Feb 2012, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:16:34 -0700, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> wrote:
> > I therefore call for an immediate vote on the following ballot.
> 
> With votes from 7 of 8 committee members, all ranking A as their first
> preference, the outcome of this ballot is no longer in doubt, and we have
> met the required > 3:1 majority.  

Marking this bug as done; see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658341#73 for the
final decision.
 

Don Armstrong

-- 
I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they
had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is
beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over
TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back.
 -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--- End Message ---
Reply to: