4 ms·

AFAICT you have it backwards -- the other packager is the upstream developer and maintainer of the pre-existing ubuntu package. The only thing that Daniel's pac

AFAICT you have it backwards -- the other packager is the upstream developer and maintainer of the pre-existing ubuntu package. The only thing that Daniel's package had going for it was that he had submitted it earlier, but he had not gone through the process of filing an ITP to tell other people that they don't need to spend time on packaging it. I find the whole thread somewhat cringey to read and I'm not sure why he thinks it reflects well on him.

curun1r 11y ago
Regardless of who was in the right, there's a number of people on that thread who come off as incredibly disrespectful and should be issuing public apologies for their behavior. I get that it was a heated argument, but people deserve more respect than that, especially when they're volunteering their time.
- andoriyu 11y ago
  No. Because Daniel ignored protocols someone else had to volunteer time to clean up that mess. It's quite possible such thing happened before and Daniel failed to learn a lesson. Either way — it's pointless drama and rage quit.
chris_wot 11y ago
Is there an ITR process ("Intent To Replace")? Because the issues REALLY got bad when the following was written: live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is deprecated. live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with debian-cd and D-I. I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has been a long time coming and I'm not going to spend time bikeshedding over naming. I would rather spend that time on integration of live image creation into official Debian infrastructure and building the best system for live image creation possible. Consider this thread marked as wontfix. https://lists.debian.org/debian-live/2015/11/msg00008.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-live/2015/11/msg00008.html So in other words, there was an upset about Daniel not filing an ITP, and then this casual email gets sent saying an entire project has been deprecated, that discussion is not needed as it was a fait accomplis and the hundred and thousands of man hours people contributed to it weren't important? Not good, and very poorly handled.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  That one stood out to me - plus the other part that says that debian-live was never an official project, which seems to be in contradiction to https://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/08/ https://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/08/
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Well, too late does that same guy realise that things have gone pear shaped! He's gone from "this has been a long time coming" and "consider this thread marked as wontfix" to the below: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=155;bug=804315 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=155;bug=80... original aim for this was that this new tool would be integrated into the existing Debian Live project, and that we would bring the Debian Live project into Debian. This is not the way it has gone. Except that is not what he wrote. He didn't say anything about integrating into the project. Instead he said the project a. Wasn't an official Debian project (when actually it does look like it was), and b. They were about to deprecate the entire project! I have to call bullshit on this one. There was never any intent to integrate with the project. That's one dishonest email!
    - geofft 11y ago
      > Wasn't an official Debian project (when actually it does look like it was) There were no Debian Developers involved in Debian Live of late, because Daniel (somehow -- I don't care for the drama) got removed as a Debian Developer. I don't know for sure, but I would totally believe that it was officially a Debian project in 2006 but was not in 2015. As a Debian Live user, this situation was quite a bit confusing: the only Debian-related URL it had was live.debian.net (in the debian.net namespace that any Debian developer can request a DNS record for, pointing anywhere), and it really seemed to live on live-systems.org, which pointed to the same servers.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Sadly, it sounds like the e-mail you get from mangers when they want you to keep working until your replacements are ready to discard you properly. I agree with you that those two e-mails say totally different things.

curun1r 11y ago

Regardless of who was in the right, there's a number of people on that thread who come off as incredibly disrespectful and should be issuing public apologies for their behavior. I get that it was a heated argument, but people deserve more respect than that, especially when they're volunteering their time.

andoriyu 11y ago
No. Because Daniel ignored protocols someone else had to volunteer time to clean up that mess. It's quite possible such thing happened before and Daniel failed to learn a lesson. Either way — it's pointless drama and rage quit.

chris_wot 11y ago

Is there an ITR process ("Intent To Replace")? Because the issues REALLY got bad when the following was written: live-build has been deprecated by debian-cd, and live-build-ng is replacing it. In a purely Debian context at least, live-build is deprecated. live-build-ng is being developed in collaboration with debian-cd and D-I. I'm aware that I'm going to be upsetting people, but this has been a long time coming and I'm not going to spend time bikeshedding over naming. I would rather spend that time on integration of live image creation into official Debian infrastructure and building the best system for live image creation possible. Consider this thread marked as wontfix. https://lists.debian.org/debian-live/2015/11/msg00008.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-live/2015/11/msg00008.html So in other words, there was an upset about Daniel not filing an ITP, and then this casual email gets sent saying an entire project has been deprecated, that discussion is not needed as it was a fait accomplis and the hundred and thousands of man hours people contributed to it weren't important? Not good, and very poorly handled.

voltagex_ 11y ago
That one stood out to me - plus the other part that says that debian-live was never an official project, which seems to be in contradiction to https://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/08/ https://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/08/
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Well, too late does that same guy realise that things have gone pear shaped! He's gone from "this has been a long time coming" and "consider this thread marked as wontfix" to the below: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=155;bug=804315 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=155;bug=80... original aim for this was that this new tool would be integrated into the existing Debian Live project, and that we would bring the Debian Live project into Debian. This is not the way it has gone. Except that is not what he wrote. He didn't say anything about integrating into the project. Instead he said the project a. Wasn't an official Debian project (when actually it does look like it was), and b. They were about to deprecate the entire project! I have to call bullshit on this one. There was never any intent to integrate with the project. That's one dishonest email!
  - geofft 11y ago
    > Wasn't an official Debian project (when actually it does look like it was) There were no Debian Developers involved in Debian Live of late, because Daniel (somehow -- I don't care for the drama) got removed as a Debian Developer. I don't know for sure, but I would totally believe that it was officially a Debian project in 2006 but was not in 2015. As a Debian Live user, this situation was quite a bit confusing: the only Debian-related URL it had was live.debian.net (in the debian.net namespace that any Debian developer can request a DNS record for, pointing anywhere), and it really seemed to live on live-systems.org, which pointed to the same servers.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Sadly, it sounds like the e-mail you get from mangers when they want you to keep working until your replacements are ready to discard you properly. I agree with you that those two e-mails say totally different things.