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


Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #12612 > unrolled thread

Move python-libusb1 from NEW/Unstable

Started bydebianbugs@felinefamily.org
First post2020-05-24 02:30 +0200
Last post2020-05-25 09:10 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

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


Contents

  Move python-libusb1 from NEW/Unstable debianbugs@felinefamily.org - 2020-05-24 02:30 +0200
    Re: Move python-libusb1 from NEW/Unstable Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2020-05-24 11:00 +0200
      Re: Move python-libusb1 from NEW/Unstable Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2020-05-25 09:10 +0200

#12612 — Move python-libusb1 from NEW/Unstable

Fromdebianbugs@felinefamily.org
Date2020-05-24 02:30 +0200
SubjectMove python-libusb1 from NEW/Unstable
Message-ID<A9MGB-1XV-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Hello all-

I’m working with the TAILS team to get the updated python-trezor back ported to Debian 10. It is currently held up by its dependency python-libusb1. The package maintainer, Arnoud Fountaine uploaded the fix to the last bug a week or so ago but it’s been stuck in the NEW queue ever since. Is there anyone that can approve it so it can get moved to Sid, with the intention of it subsequently progressing to testing after the requisite wait?

Any help would be greatly appreciated

Mike

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#12613

FromMattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org>
Date2020-05-24 11:00 +0200
Message-ID<A9UEa-6EM-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#12612

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

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 05:03:50PM -0700, debianbugs@felinefamily.org wrote:
> The package maintainer, Arnoud Fountaine uploaded the fix to the last
> bug a week or so ago but it’s been stuck in the NEW queue ever since.
> Is there anyone that can approve it so it can get moved to Sid

NEW is a manual process from the ftp-team.
It can take from a few hours up to months, and it's not really something
that can be prodded just to have a quicker backports.
The queue is processed in a non specified order, and you can see it
here: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html

*Usually* (not always!), if it's a small packages it is processed quite
quickly, but poking the ftp team before not even a month has passed
without a good reason (for example, it's blocking an RC bug fix) is just
inappropriate.

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

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


#12616

FromRaphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
Date2020-05-25 09:10 +0200
Message-ID<Aafpf-2t1-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#12613

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

Hello Mattia,

On Sun, 24 May 2020, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 05:03:50PM -0700, debianbugs@felinefamily.org wrote:
> > The package maintainer, Arnoud Fountaine uploaded the fix to the last
> > bug a week or so ago but it’s been stuck in the NEW queue ever since.
> > Is there anyone that can approve it so it can get moved to Sid
> 
> NEW is a manual process from the ftp-team.
> It can take from a few hours up to months, and it's not really something
> that can be prodded just to have a quicker backports.
> The queue is processed in a non specified order, and you can see it
> here: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
> 
> *Usually* (not always!), if it's a small packages it is processed quite
> quickly, but poking the ftp team before not even a month has passed
> without a good reason (for example, it's blocking an RC bug fix) is just
> inappropriate.

I don't agree with your assessment. A month is a very long time and I have
prodded members of the FTP team way earlier than that when I had a reason.
And here a reason was given. I don't really see why you judge that reason
to not be a good reason.

Any reason which ends up as "it's blocking further work" is a good reason
IMO.

Mattia, I really appreciate what you have been doing in Debian but at
times I have the feeling that you keep alive the idea that some of the
most glaring deficiencies of Debian are "normal".

Please try to show some compassion to other contributors when they are
stuck. To me, the above response sounded like "yeah, that's normal, don't
complain, it's inappropriate". It would have been much better if it had
been worded as « It's unfortunate that this is blocking your work but
NEW is a manual process.... <skip explanation>
To speed up the process, you can try to prod ftpmasters on #debian-ftp
explaning your reason why you need it. I'm not convinced that a backport
passes the threshold justifying such a prod but you can always try. »

Cheers,
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋    The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


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


csiph-web