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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #17270 > unrolled thread

[backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release

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

Contents

  [backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-12-11 13:10 +0100
    Re: [backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-12-18 03:50 +0100
      Re: [backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release Thomas Ward <teward@ubuntu.com> - 2025-12-18 04:40 +0100
        Re: [backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2025-12-18 09:40 +0100
          Re: [backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-12-19 01:40 +0100

#17270 — [backintime] Advise about unresponsive DPM and new 1.5.6 release

Hello again,
and sorry to bother all of you with this issue.

I am upstream maintainer of backintime [1]. My DPM (Jonathan Wiltshire, 
jmw) is unresponsive and does not react (for 3 months now) to my last 
hotfix release [2] and also not to emails. The other two "uploader" 
expressed to me that they won't be able to do more maintenance tasks on 
that package.

I don't know what to do. Not having an upload of this release would be 
fine for me, but only if I have a reasons. To give a reason some 
communication need to be done. And that is what jmw is missing.

I have this problem since I took over the upstream project in 2022. MIA 
is not an option because jmw manages to "react" (with upload but no 
answers) in a time span less then 6 months. The Debian Python Team also 
refuse to take over the package without jmw giving it away. The 
situation is frustrating because I do not know the reasons and there is 
no communication.

Any advice?

Best regards,
Christian Buhtz


[1] -- <https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/backintime>
[2] -- <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1117254>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17272

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

On Thursday, December 11, 2025 5:05:50 AM Mountain Standard Time 
c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
> Hello again,
> and sorry to bother all of you with this issue.
> 
> I am upstream maintainer of backintime [1]. My DPM (Jonathan Wiltshire,
> jmw) is unresponsive and does not react (for 3 months now) to my last
> hotfix release [2] and also not to emails. The other two "uploader"
> expressed to me that they won't be able to do more maintenance tasks on
> that package.
> 
> I don't know what to do. Not having an upload of this release would be
> fine for me, but only if I have a reasons. To give a reason some
> communication need to be done. And that is what jmw is missing.
> 
> I have this problem since I took over the upstream project in 2022. MIA
> is not an option because jmw manages to "react" (with upload but no
> answers) in a time span less then 6 months. The Debian Python Team also
> refuse to take over the package without jmw giving it away. The
> situation is frustrating because I do not know the reasons and there is
> no communication.

I don’t think the problem is that the Debian Python Team is refusing to take 
over the package.  I think the problem is that nobody has the interest in 
taking over the package.  (It is an important distinction when dealing with 
volunteer organizations.)

Debian has an established package salvaging procedure that you or anyone else 
is welcome to follow:

https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging

> Any advice?

I believe the last time you wrote about this problem I mentioned that the only 
way to make sure that a Debian package stays up-to-date is for there to be a 
willing volunteer who has the time and energy to make it happen.  As an 
upstream developer, that either happens if someone comes forward to do so, or 
if you do it yourself.

As the timely-update problem appears to be unresolved, my recommendation to 
you would be to maintain it yourself.  I would be happy to sponsor the upload 
if you salvage the package.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

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

#17273

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

On 2025-12-17 21:41, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> On Thursday, December 11, 2025 5:05:50 AM Mountain Standard Time
> c.buhtz@posteo.jp wrote:
>> Hello again,
>> and sorry to bother all of you with this issue.
>>
>> I am upstream maintainer of backintime [1]. My DPM (Jonathan Wiltshire,
>> jmw) is unresponsive and does not react (for 3 months now) to my last
>> hotfix release [2] and also not to emails. The other two "uploader"
>> expressed to me that they won't be able to do more maintenance tasks on
>> that package.
>>
>> I don't know what to do. Not having an upload of this release would be
>> fine for me, but only if I have a reasons. To give a reason some
>> communication need to be done. And that is what jmw is missing.
>>
>> I have this problem since I took over the upstream project in 2022. MIA
>> is not an option because jmw manages to "react" (with upload but no
>> answers) in a time span less then 6 months. The Debian Python Team also
>> refuse to take over the package without jmw giving it away. The
>> situation is frustrating because I do not know the reasons and there is
>> no communication.
> I don’t think the problem is that the Debian Python Team is refusing to take
> over the package.  I think the problem is that nobody has the interest in
> taking over the package.  (It is an important distinction when dealing with
> volunteer organizations.)
>
> Debian has an established package salvaging procedure that you or anyone else
> is welcome to follow:
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging
I am not willing to long term help with the package maintenance, but I 
can prepare an NMU that can be uploaded and sponsored that can contain 
your updated version for Unstable.  It will still need 
sponsored/reviewed as I am not a DD, but I would be willing to at least 
give the NMU route a shot to assist in the short term. (I have other 
obligations that prevent a long-term maintaining of a package).
>> Any advice?
> I believe the last time you wrote about this problem I mentioned that the only
> way to make sure that a Debian package stays up-to-date is for there to be a
> willing volunteer who has the time and energy to make it happen.  As an
> upstream developer, that either happens if someone comes forward to do so, or
> if you do it yourself.
>
> As the timely-update problem appears to be unresolved, my recommendation to
> you would be to maintain it yourself.  I would be happy to sponsor the upload
> if you salvage the package.

Let me know if this is a route you would like me to explore, Christian.


Thomas

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

#17274

Hello Soren and Thomas,
thank you very much for your feedback and kind words. Even this is 
somehow helpful for me and my mood.

In my understanding the DPT would take over the package but only if the 
current maintainer says OK to it.
Anyway.

The maintainer is not inactive but only not responsive. I think I need 
to live with it. I need to monitor the situation even further.

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.

Regards,
Christian Buhtz

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

#17276

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

On Thursday, December 18, 2025 1:35:55 AM Mountain Standard Time 
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.
> 
> In my understanding the DPT would take over the package but only if the
> current maintainer says OK to it.
> Anyway.

That isn’t actually correct.  The policy is that the Debian Packaging Team (or 
any team in Debian except for the QA team, which only handles packages that 
have been abandoned) does not maintain a package unless at least one human 
maintainer is listed by name in the Uploaders field.  That Uploader is the 
primary maintainer of the package.  The rest of the team is only a backup.

For 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 wants 
to salvage the package, they can choose to move it under the Debian Python 
Team, but they must put themselves in the Uploaders field, which is a 
commitment for them to maintain it going forward.
 
> 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 
upstream developer and the Debian maintainer for Privacy Browser, and it has 
worked out well for the package.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web