Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #16921 > unrolled thread

[src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from maintainer/uploader)

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) <c.buhtz@posteo.jp> - 2025-06-14 17:20 +0200
    Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@debian.org> - 2025-06-14 22:40 +0200
      Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) <c.buhtz@posteo.jp> - 2025-06-16 07:50 +0200
        Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-06-16 13:40 +0200
          Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Carsten Schoenert <c.schoenert@t-online.de> - 2025-06-16 15:10 +0200
            Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-06-16 15:30 +0200
                Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-06-16 19:30 +0200
                Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-06-16 23:20 +0200
                  Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2025-06-16 23:50 +0200
                    Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-06-17 09:00 +0200
                      Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2025-06-17 16:00 +0200
                  Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-06-17 00:20 +0200
                    Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-06-17 09:00 +0200
                      Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-06-17 09:10 +0200
                        Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2025-06-17 09:50 +0200
                        Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-06-17 09:50 +0200
                        Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-06-17 23:20 +0200
                        Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from maintainer/uploader) Nick Morrott <knowledgejunkie@gmail.com> - 2025-06-17 23:50 +0200
                            Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from  maintainer/uploader) Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-06-18 00:00 +0200

#16921 — [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from maintainer/uploader)

Hello,
My apologize for asking something like this on your list. But I don't
got any response from the maintainer or uploader of the package
"backintime", where I am the upstream maintainer of.

I would like to get advice from you, how to proceed further.

I am aware that Debian is currently in Hard Freeze. Back In Time has a
bug [1] that IMHO should get fixed before Trixie release.
The fix is out with version 1.5.5, containing only that fix. Current
version in Trixie is 1.5.4.

The bug will affect a serious amount of users without having an easy
workaround. So they are better with having the fixed version.

Thank you very much for the help.
Regards,
Christian Buhtz

[1] -- <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106754>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16922

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello!

On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 03:12:03PM +0000, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
> Hello,
> My apologize for asking something like this on your list. But I don't
> got any response from the maintainer or uploader of the package
> "backintime", where I am the upstream maintainer of.
> 
That's one of the problems to have packages maintained outside a team.

> I would like to get advice from you, how to proceed further.
>

The RC bug was filled at 29th May. So in that case I'd send a NMU.

> I am aware that Debian is currently in Hard Freeze. Back In Time has a
> bug [1] that IMHO should get fixed before Trixie release.
> The fix is out with version 1.5.5, containing only that fix. Current
> version in Trixie is 1.5.4.
> 
> The bug will affect a serious amount of users without having an easy
> workaround. So they are better with having the fixed version.
> 
> Thank you very much for the help.
> Regards,
> Christian Buhtz
> 
> [1] -- <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1106754>
> 

-- 
cheers,
        Emmanuel Arias

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  eamanu@debian.org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: 13796755BBC72BB8ABE2AEB5 FA9DEC5DE11C63F1                     
 ⠈⠳⣄

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16923

Hello Emmanuel,
Thank you for your response.

On 2025-06-14 20:38 Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@debian.org> wrote:
> That's one of the problems to have packages maintained outside a team.

He refused to hand over the maintainer ship to your team. ;)

> The RC bug was filled at 29th May. So in that case I'd send a NMU.

You mean it is OK, if I do open an NMU, despite that I am not a Debian
Developer but only an upstream maintainer?

Regards,
Christian Buhtz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16924

Hello again,
and sorry for asking.

Am 16.06.2025 07:41 schrieb c.buhtz@posteo.jp:
> You mean it is OK, if I do open an NMU, despite that I am not a Debian
> Developer but only an upstream maintainer?

I checked this two resources [1][2] but can not find out how to initiate 
the NMU process. Do I do this via the ticket system?

Regards,
Christian

[1] -- <https://wiki.debian.org/NonMaintainerUpload>
[2] -- 
<https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16925

Hello Christian,

Am 16.06.25 um 13:38 schrieb c.buhtz@posteo.jp:
> Hello again,
> and sorry for asking.
> 
> Am 16.06.2025 07:41 schrieb c.buhtz@posteo.jp:
>> You mean it is OK, if I do open an NMU, despite that I am not a Debian
>> Developer but only an upstream maintainer?
> 
> I checked this two resources [1][2] but can not find out how to initiate
> the NMU process. Do I do this via the ticket system?

A NMU (non maintainer upload) can only be done by a Debian Developer. 
You can't do anything on this except asking or find some DD who would be 
willing to do this.

-- 
Regards
Carsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16926

Hello Carsten,
thank you for the reply.

Am 16.06.2025 14:51 schrieb Carsten Schoenert:
> You can't do anything on this except asking or find some DD who would
> be willing to do this.

I see. And asking on that list was the best thing to do? Or is there 
another appropriate channel or medium I should use for asking?

Best,
Christian Buhtz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16927

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Monday, June 16, 2025 6:22:44 AM Mountain Standard Time c.buhtz@posteo.jp 
wrote:
> Hello Carsten,
> thank you for the reply.
> 
> Am 16.06.2025 14:51 schrieb Carsten Schoenert:
> > You can't do anything on this except asking or find some DD who would
> > be willing to do this.
> 
> I see. And asking on that list was the best thing to do? Or is there
> another appropriate channel or medium I should use for asking?

To be more express, you only need a Debian Developer to sponsor the upload.  
If you are willing to do the packaging yourself, you can prepare everything 
and then file a RFS (Request For Sponsor) asking that a Debian Developer 
sponsor the upload.

Given that you are the upstream maintainer, that this bug has significant 
consequences for users, and that the changes are minimal, I think your chances 
of finding a sponsor for a prepared upload are pretty good (I would be willing 
to sponsor it).

There is information about the RFS procedure at:

https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/

If you are interested in going this route, I would recommend you fork the 
package on Salsa (you can request an account if you don’t already have one), 
prepare your changes in the fork, upload it to Mentors, and file an RFS.

This package uses gbp (Git-Buildpackage) with pristine-tar enabled.

https://wiki.debian.org/PackagingWithGit

You can choose to do an upgrade to your new upstream, which (once you have a 
working gbp setup), can be as easy as “gbp import-orig --uscan” and then 
editing debian/copyright and debian/changelog.

Or, you could backport your change using a patch, which means you don’t have 
to figure out how to use gbp, but you do need to figure out how to use quilt 
(if you don’t have any experience with it).

https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt

If you are interested in going this route, feel free to email me directly with 
any questions.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16928

Hello Soren,
Thank you for the reply.

Am 16.06.2025 19:25 schrieb Soren Stoutner:
> If you are willing to do the packaging yourself

Willing is not the problem but I lack of expertise and capabilities. I 
tried that several times for packages much easier than backintime. It is 
really not an option I am doing the packaging myself.
Packing backintime need an experienced packager.

Regards,
Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16929

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

c.buhtz@posteo.jp writes:

> Hello Soren,
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> Am 16.06.2025 19:25 schrieb Soren Stoutner:
>> If you are willing to do the packaging yourself
>
> Willing is not the problem but I lack of expertise and capabilities. I 
> tried that several times for packages much easier than backintime. It is 
> really not an option I am doing the packaging myself.
> Packing backintime need an experienced packager.

I'm willing to do an NMU if backintime's upstream will officially
support Debian's btrfs layout ("@rootfs" rather than "@").  Without that
I don't see the point of doing an NMU to make something allegedly buggy
(and nonfunctional) allegedly not buggy (and nonfunctional).  I would
also encourage upstream to support Fedora's flat layout ("root" and
"home" if I remember correctly, maybe "rootfs").  It's still just a
two-subvolume flat layout.

Given that they all use the same flat layout (unlike SUSE), refusing to
support them is political rather than technical.

Best,
Nicholas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16932

Hello Nicholas,
Thank you for your interesting feedback.

Am 16.06.2025 23:48 schrieb Nicholas D Steeves:
> if backintime's upstream will officially
> support Debian's btrfs layout ("@rootfs" rather than "@").

I don't know enough about "btrfs" to understand that. Feel free to 
explain this in an upstream Issue [1] or at our mailing list [2]. We are 
always open for discussion. Keep in mind that backintime does use rsync 
in the back.

> also encourage upstream to support Fedora's flat layout ("root" and
> "home" if I remember correctly, maybe "rootfs").  It's still just a
> two-subvolume flat layout.

I also don't understand that. Is this also related to the btrfs topic?

Thank you for your feedback.
Regards,
Christian Buhtz

[1] -- <https://github.com/bit-team/backintime/issues/new/choose>
[2] -- <https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/bit-dev.python.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16936

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello Christian,

c.buhtz@posteo.jp writes:

> Hello Nicholas,
> Thank you for your interesting feedback.
>
> Am 16.06.2025 23:48 schrieb Nicholas D Steeves:
>> if backintime's upstream will officially
>> support Debian's btrfs layout ("@rootfs" rather than "@").
>
> I don't know enough about "btrfs" to understand that. Feel free to 
> explain this in an upstream Issue [1] or at our mailing list [2]. We are 
> always open for discussion. Keep in mind that backintime does use rsync 
> in the back.
>
>> also encourage upstream to support Fedora's flat layout ("root" and
>> "home" if I remember correctly, maybe "rootfs").  It's still just a
>> two-subvolume flat layout.
>
> I also don't understand that. Is this also related to the btrfs topic?

I'm sorry, I must have been half-asleep, distracted, or confused,
because I mixed up backintime (rsync only?) with timeshift (btrfs or
rsync).

It looks like the maintainer took care of
https://bugs.debian.org/1106754 ... For the record, a bug that is
serious enough to merit an unblock during the hard-freeze is serious
enough to merit a stable-update post-release.

Kind regards,
Nicholas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16930

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:17:12PM +0000, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
>>If you are willing to do the packaging yourself
>
>Willing is not the problem but I lack of expertise and capabilities. I 
>tried that several times for packages much easier than backintime. It 
>is really not an option I am doing the packaging myself.
>Packing backintime need an experienced packager.

That's expected, so what did you want to know when you asked "how to 
proceed further"?

-- 
WBR, wRAR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16931

Hello Andrey,

Am 16.06.2025 23:29 schrieb Andrey Rakhmatullin:
> That's expected, so what did you want to know when you asked "how to
> proceed further"?

I just want to be sure that there is no other Debian-like process or 
channel
where to put such requests in, e.g. a ticket against a pseudo-package or
something like this. It is not easy for outsiders like me.

So it seems this list was the correct place and there is no other 
channel.
And I can do nothing else than waiting.

Thank you for the answers.
Regards,
Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16933

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 06:56:19AM +0000, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
>>That's expected, so what did you want to know when you asked "how to
>>proceed further"?
>
>I just want to be sure that there is no other Debian-like process or 
>channel
>where to put such requests in, e.g. a ticket against a pseudo-package or
>something like this. It is not easy for outsiders like me.

No, there is no process for asking other unspecified people to prepare and 
make some NMU.

>So it seems this list was the correct place 

It was not, but it doesn't look like we will be able to make you 
understand that.

>And I can do nothing else than waiting.

Correct.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16934

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 07:41:38AM +0000, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
>>>So it seems this list was the correct place
>>
>>It was not, but it doesn't look like we will be able to make you
>>understand that.
>
>I am willing to learn and understand. What did I miss?

You haven't missed anything, you've already told us that you are sending 
your generic questions to debian-python@ because "That list is "my" Debian 
community. It is that part of the community I am "warm with". ;)" and you 
already apologized in your original email for sending it here.

>Which place 
>would have been the correct one?

Maybe debian-user@ as this is not even a contribution question. 

-- 
WBR, wRAR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16935

Hello Andrey

Am 17.06.2025 09:03 schrieb Andrey Rakhmatullin:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 06:56:19AM +0000, c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
>> So it seems this list was the correct place
> 
> It was not, but it doesn't look like we will be able to make you
> understand that.

I am willing to learn and understand. What did I miss? Which place would 
have been the correct one?

Regards,
Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16937

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Monday, June 16, 2025 11:56:19 PM Mountain Standard Time c.buhtz@posteo.jp 
wrote:
> Hello Andrey,
> 
> Am 16.06.2025 23:29 schrieb Andrey Rakhmatullin:
> > That's expected, so what did you want to know when you asked "how to
> > proceed further"?
> 
> I just want to be sure that there is no other Debian-like process or
> channel
> where to put such requests in, e.g. a ticket against a pseudo-package or
> something like this. It is not easy for outsiders like me.
> 
> So it seems this list was the correct place and there is no other
> channel.
> And I can do nothing else than waiting.
> 
> Thank you for the answers.
> Regards,
> Christian

The thing you need to understand about Debian is that it has a strong package-
ownership model.  That means that very few things happen without the package 
maintainers being involved and other Debian Developers are reticent to step on 
the package maintainers’ toes.

Typically, for the software I package, I try to develop strong relationships 
with the upstream developers.  If I were ever contacted by an upstream 
developer stating that an important fix should be shipped in the Debian on an 
expedited schedule, I would do everything possible to make it happen.

I do no know why you have not had this experience with the maintainers of your 
package this time.  Perhaps they are very busy and haven’t seen your 
communications.  Or perhaps they have lost interest in contributing to Debian.  
Or perhaps they are ill.  As far as I know, none of them have responded 
negatively to your suggestion of an update.

Debian has a couple of procedures for dealing with packages whose maintainers 
are absent or unresponsive.  The least invasive is an NMU (Non-Maintainer 
Upload).  The most invasive is package Salvaging (becoming the new 
maintainer).  Both of these require extra steps and delayed time compared to 
the maintainer updating the package.

As stated earlier, Debian Developers tend to be fairly reticent to step on 
other developer’s toes.  And, in addition, most are fairly busy and don’t have 
a lot of bandwidth to take on any new tasks.  The result of this is that often 
a package has to languish for several years before someone else picks it up.

As an upstream developer, you only have a few basic options when dealing with 
this unfavorable situation.

1. Do the Debian packaging yourself (that is what I personally do).  As you 
already mentioned, Debian packaging is a surprisingly complicated task.  It 
took me three months of reading documentation before I was ready to start 
working on my first package, and another three months after that before I 
could produce usable results (and years later I am still learning all types of 
new things about doing it well).

2. Wait for a response--which might or might not ever come--from those who 
have maintained the package in the past.

3. Wait for some other package maintainer to take over maintenance of the 
package.

None of these are ideal.  The ideal would be that every package is maintained 
by an active and involved maintainer who responds in a timely manner to every 
bug report and every upstream release.  The ideal is also that Debian has a 
surplus of developers that have enough time to make sure that nothing falls 
through the cracks.  I try to always be in the middle of mentoring one or two 
new developers to move us in that direction.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16938 — Re: [src:backintime] Upload despite Hard Freeze (no response from maintainer/uploader)

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 22:19, Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> wrote:

> I do no know why you have not had this experience with the maintainers of your
> package this time.  Perhaps they are very busy and haven’t seen your
> communications.  Or perhaps they have lost interest in contributing to Debian.
> Or perhaps they are ill.  As far as I know, none of them have responded
> negatively to your suggestion of an update.

According to https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/backintime, backintime
version 1.5.5 was uploaded to unstable this morning by the package
maintainer.

Cheers,
Nick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16939

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tuesday, June 17, 2025 2:43:57 PM Mountain Standard Time Nick Morrott 
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 22:19, Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> wrote:
> > I do no know why you have not had this experience with the maintainers of
> > your package this time.  Perhaps they are very busy and haven’t seen your
> > communications.  Or perhaps they have lost interest in contributing to
> > Debian. Or perhaps they are ill.  As far as I know, none of them have
> > responded negatively to your suggestion of an update.
> 
> According to https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/backintime, backintime
> version 1.5.5 was uploaded to unstable this morning by the package
> maintainer.

That makes me smile.  I am a proponent of the strong maintainer model as long 
as it is working well.

Note that to migrate to testing it is going to need an unblock request.  
Hopefully, Jonathan Wiltshire, who uploaded it, will file one.  Looking at 
recent requests that have been approved for KDE packages for less serious 
things, I would imaging it would be approved.  For example:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1107340

c.buhtz, if Jonathan doesn’t file an unblock request, it is perfectly 
appropriate for you to do so.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web