[Yaird-devel] Bug#457177: Bug#457177: Bug#457177: keep yaird out of Testing

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 01:59:31PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> severity 457177 serious
> thanks
> 
> * Jonas Smedegaard (dr at jones.dk) [071221 19:54]:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:11:21PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> > >i hate myself inflated bugs, but if you had have a look at
> > >the cited points you'd agree on the severity.
> > 
> > We do not (in this bugreport) have a dispute over severity of those bugs 
> > that you listed. I did not even comment on them (as you seem well aware) 
> > but instead requested that you refer to the bugreports, as discussing 
> > severity of each bug is best done at those other bugreports.
> > 
> > Our disagreement here is on severity of *this* bug, which I interpret as 
> > a metabug claiming that "this package generally have too many too severe 
> > bugs". Please correct me if I somehow misunderstood the nature of the 
> > bug raised with this bugreport.
> 
> 
> Unfortunatly, I have to agree from a release team POV (i.e. speaking
> with my Release Manager hat on) with maks on the general status of the
> package, especially as maks spoke with his kernel arch maintainer hat
> on (so his remarks shouldn't be lightly waived away).

Andreas, face it, Max speaks as a strong supporter of initramfs-tools,
the concurent of yaird, and has shown real antagonism and agressivity
toward yaird since the begining of the initrd->initramfs migration.

As thus, his motives are suspect, and his position dubious. He has
already in the past shown such personal motives when claiming to wearing
his kernel maintainer hat on, as can be seen when he supported Bastian
in rejecting the efika and PS3 patches when i proposed them, without
valid reason (as explained in bug #439006), chosing to expulse me
without valid reason, and recently told Aurelien that the patches where
acceptable, provided they didn't come from me.

> One might discuss about the adequate severity of the individual bugs,
> but they together makes this package RC buggy. (Perhaps even some of the

It seems though that some of these mentioned bug where not even bothered
to be filled individually. How comes, if they are so RC, that only one
is marked as RC for example ?

This clearly shows that not everything was technically done to solve
these issues, and that personal vested interests have taken precedence
over the quality we promised our users.

This sounds more like a witch hunt in order to get ride of a rival, than
real concern about the technicality of the code, or the well being of
our users.

> individual bugs make it - we can discuss that at the individual bug
> reports if wanted.) But there are some cases like "brutal hardcoding -
> breaks ony every new linux image either due to /proc, /sys or
> /boot/config hardcoded parsing see #443821 for the latest 2.6.23
> variation" which are *not* fixed by adjusting to the current kernel, but
> we expect some flexibility and robustness as long term strategy.

Well, yaird is not the default, so gets only installed if the user
explicitly asks for it, and the yaird approach is technically superior
to the initramfs-tools one, which also had various RC breakages in the
past.

This doesn't mean that yaird has not many problems, in particular the
fact that it is basically unmaintained upstream, and that Jonas doesn't
have the shulders or knowledge to take over the upstream work on
yaird,as he himself told me at that ill-fated day almost two years ago
in erkelenz where he single-handedlt set us in a course of events which
would disintegrate the kernel team to its lamentable state we see today,
and foreshadowed one of the worst and most shameful set of events that
debian has ever seen.

> This isn't a final opinion on yaird, but please don't lower the severity
> of this bug report until either this bug is fixed also in the opinion
> of the bug reporter, or someone from the release team agrees to lowering
> the severity.

You too doesn't respond to the main critic of Jonas, why was a meta-bug
of this level needed, while the individual issues have partially not
even be raised. This is not good DD behaviour, and it is certainly a
shame seeing someone in your position not to support good maintenance
rules, which would favour to track the issues in individual bug reports,
and inform both the maintainer and our users about those issues in an
easy to track way.

Andras, please remember your responsabilities as release manager, as
well as our promise in the social contract : "we won't hide problems",
and bring this issue in the right path for a resolution of the yaird
problems, as mandated by debian's good maintainership rules.

Sadly,

Sven Luther

> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Andi
> -- 
>   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Yaird-devel mailing list
> Yaird-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/yaird-devel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. 
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
> 
>