Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.corradoroberto.it!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Soren Stoutner Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: [backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 01:40:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Fri Dec 19 00:34:16 2025 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.41 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Organization: Debian Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAFVBMVEWIg4F7bGiws7ReTkyy kYoXFRrd6/4yMA0PAAACaklEQVQ4y22TwXabMBBFJaPuNZGSNZZp1uhM6BpkJeu4VFk3bsL/f0Lf CHC6qHyOgbl68zTDoIwaVfh3tUopTUGpbFToDiFnY9IY2oMAZYMiS4R9SfbSXepSS5EcFAa/muIU aRj8mkoUqrEraFzhYegBmqig0LyCIyM8DAwPlpBqmJVYaD2UeWZ3abVjsqKIojg+hY4omsyIcNSi qIBM6jJWOveS6kvBeVvHJ+VYzJUW88RmA12UiBx3HEcUMRuzIZI6tBQovTrPclNB3AuUXoXvs0XY C3B2baJpW4Dn2ZpVMInCirkxoyhM1qpK5nFrO65QvCrCqql2DyPgvm94iMQz5/PmISuEotxQGMD5 M5G1N9CjXJ5HQH96BZG2xx6AzejYZccxT4Re3Zr4bPKkCcGcz5Or3dVEABkAUY/znnVcQVVkrXVU vomoEJFe7x4nQuaZmZELL6qnXZGIB5YV/Q2IogtSmyNybEcBX2+QCLOAQYm+gmoORUrYzV7dc6R2 T1WPm45oVEQqsjtoIovHyTmcyxMhVVxTqapomZyLlAmTKC9AmjgamXXGZo+epNrXO3wGGiPRHbKL FnMy2RRgRb1gzFXXGjhICp8wqaTtdtyQH6nWTfkatJvJJoUCbOjSC7wR9/naEVognxrOFdLh7Ugx QpA/0QT4pRV0+u2dqsXD5y9EBDjVAJS3ZZLxmZblgmsU8x7mBeCKg48Py7WU2IiH1epbEbC8K9Ms y0cpcySVUcdQVrBY+rEsv+XpYgFKXT8B3v2yATxv8fKK2EfC358tsIMLYqfD401xA0j1EY4P/wWf IbhlOWyBv4OQsywBM8MAAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1882146.VLH7GnMWUR"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Debian-User: soren X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/23513 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/6151623.MhkbZ0Pkbq@soren-desktop Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 89 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: c.buhtz@posteo.jp X-Original-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:33:50 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: <6151623.MhkbZ0Pkbq@soren-desktop> X-Original-References: <7f0c8726d196f7652a6fc3c1659a8e2e@posteo.de> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:17276 --nextPart1882146.VLH7GnMWUR Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; protected-headers="v1" From: Soren Stoutner To: debian-python@lists.debian.org Cc: c.buhtz@posteo.jp Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:33:50 -0700 Message-ID: <6151623.MhkbZ0Pkbq@soren-desktop> Organization: Debian In-Reply-To: <7f0c8726d196f7652a6fc3c1659a8e2e@posteo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 On Thursday, December 18, 2025 1:35:55=E2=80=AFAM Mountain Standard Time=20 c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote: > Hello Soren and Thomas, > thank you very much for your feedback and kind words. Even this is > somehow helpful for me and my mood. >=20 > In my understanding the DPT would take over the package but only if the > current maintainer says OK to it. > Anyway. That isn=E2=80=99t actually correct. The policy is that the Debian Packagi= ng Team (or=20 any team in Debian except for the QA team, which only handles packages that= =20 have been abandoned) does not maintain a package unless at least one human= =20 maintainer is listed by name in the Uploaders field. That Uploader is the= =20 primary maintainer of the package. The rest of the team is only a backup. =46or example, see python-electrum-ecc, which has two uploaders: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python-electrum-ecc Or python-construct-classes with one uploader: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python-construct-classes backintime lists one Maintainer and two Uploaders. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/backintime Based on what you have said I assume all three are inactive. If someone wa= nts=20 to salvage the package, they can choose to move it under the Debian Python= =20 Team, but they must put themselves in the Uploaders field, which is a=20 commitment for them to maintain it going forward. =20 > I also think that upstream maintainers shouldn't do Debian maintenance > also. An upstream maintainer is IMHO not objective enough. > But I also know this is not reality today. I can speak only for myself I > shouldn't do both jobs. To risky to introduce or break things by > accident. I can respect that. But I can tell you that in my personal case I am both = the=20 upstream developer and the Debian maintainer for Privacy Browser, and it ha= s=20 worked out well for the package. =2D-=20 Soren Stoutner soren@debian.org --nextPart1882146.VLH7GnMWUR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmlEnW4ACgkQwufLJ66w tgOlgw//WGTuRkVBCPZwiGFJ1L5GtvecJWjGOwyaGgT7bteQpgpXjakorWDwaOAK X3MeTawhG7t6pYos8DAMn28lcz2Hkzxx4IgQJ9275iqAMPLGVnx8tt3BSTluRJJv kkxVhw76zHEmPP9SEcn9dMee3uVv0rtKgZSRxm3dCEk1ofiA8IQfr6ofTDBg7m4+ gE7kUuND0bcYbsJ3Fv+gF8d5gJ1u+tI8JsIPiUd6SdGx7Bobt9nTLy9Ago+PE7Gw u8O0hck4ZtUQjS4kqxZYpXsQ63D/Y+oLbbhYo09878oTUtuHiyFjagbWYE7L+o0e 6zfRzJkOcQNFSGuozsCkoH2j9RRR7kkZ19kx55IDhyrb+laRn8QKD3aUCHGd3aQU dnaZO+Wb8nQaeCt2j9Cz+rJPFWLJUTNNxYvoqUMbqf/bi5W206jiMhfMNAoLyQwz Em16STxtj26LUranecnK0EvANxn0Mg3QwkmdC3SVBSDEZXGJXmN5/AQbr4aoVRmR njasmGy5+sYXoNQ0RLCkf36oi/8Jpm0zCcil5NhJmCYJe3Dsdd1M2HUZyy9Lu/AJ 6BSPQ/m843aL0uStuIviaNXaP6zqlRZyDJZcOb/mwHn5zN9kWa/N9LB4zOtgX+a9 i2o6p1v2iq02xitxerBptoRMalmFfry377sKuH0PmfEaOtRtuD4= =SOUn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1882146.VLH7GnMWUR--