Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Alexander, hello *,

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:39:51PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:02:07PM +0400, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 15 January 2014 12:40:52 you wrote:
> > > > I've notice some progress on the issue:
> > > > 
> > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568303
> > > > 
> > > > If Alexander won't post anything to this bug, where can I find the
> > > > package archives, he was talking about?
> > > 
> > > He was talking about collab-maint:
> > > 
> > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/can-modules.git;a=summary
> > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/can-utils.git;a=summary
> > > 
> > > Anyone can join collab-maint, you don't need to be Debian developer.
> > > It would be good if you two coordinate. CCing Alexander therefore.
> > 
> > I'm in heavy reformatting package from the link above. (Only can-utils,
> > cause I use vanilla kernel's modules.)
> I started creating a debian package from scratch, too, before being
> aware of this bug. My plan was to sent the ITP bug once the package is
> ready together with an RFS (as I'm only DM).
>  
> > Right now I've asked my college to make clean-room rewrite of some
> > lines in slcand.c, because it has licensing issues. (Mix of GPL and
> > GFDL licensed code.)
> This is resolved upstream in commit
> 393a91c7d8f6 (slcand: reimplement daemonize routine).
> 
> > I think I'll do an upload this week or the next one. If you have any
> > ideas or want to join packaging on alioth, you're welcome. But please
> > contact me prior any work, because current version on alioth is very
> > different from one I'm working on. (And because of many changes I don't
> > see a reason to upload broken state into git repo right now.)
> I'll rebase my packaging stuff, fixup for the latest changes and will
> let you know. Maybe we can work together then and pick the best things
> from both approaches.
I finished my packaging stuff nearly a month ago and contacted Alexander
by private mail without response so far. My efforts are available at

	http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=ukl/can-utils.git debian/sid

I'd like to get forward here. @Alexander: Maybe you can provide me with
the work you did already, then I'll merge our approaches. Are you still
interested in co-maintainance of can-utils? If not, are you OK when I
take ownership of this bug and start looking for a sponsor?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[Alexander Gerasiov]

Sorry guys. I'm totally busy with other tasks last month :-(. As I remember 
your package is quite ready for upload, so I'll do it tomorrow (without my 
changes, just add myself as an uploader if you don't mind). Ok?


On February 20, 2014 1:52:19 PM Uwe Kleine-König 
<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> Hello Alexander, hello *,
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:39:51PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:02:07PM +0400, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 15 January 2014 12:40:52 you wrote:
> > > > > I've notice some progress on the issue:
> > > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=568303
> > > > > > > > If Alexander won't post anything to this bug, where can I 
> find the
> > > > > package archives, he was talking about?
> > > > > > He was talking about collab-maint:
> > > > > > 
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/can-modules.git;a=summary
> > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/can-utils.git;a=summary
> > > > > > Anyone can join collab-maint, you don't need to be Debian developer.
> > > > It would be good if you two coordinate. CCing Alexander therefore.
> > > > I'm in heavy reformatting package from the link above. (Only can-utils,
> > > cause I use vanilla kernel's modules.)
> > I started creating a debian package from scratch, too, before being
> > aware of this bug. My plan was to sent the ITP bug once the package is
> > ready together with an RFS (as I'm only DM).
> > > Right now I've asked my college to make clean-room rewrite of some
> > > lines in slcand.c, because it has licensing issues. (Mix of GPL and
> > > GFDL licensed code.)
> > This is resolved upstream in commit
> > 393a91c7d8f6 (slcand: reimplement daemonize routine).
> > > I think I'll do an upload this week or the next one. If you have any
> > > ideas or want to join packaging on alioth, you're welcome. But please
> > > contact me prior any work, because current version on alioth is very
> > > different from one I'm working on. (And because of many changes I don't
> > > see a reason to upload broken state into git repo right now.)
> > I'll rebase my packaging stuff, fixup for the latest changes and will
> > let you know. Maybe we can work together then and pick the best things
> > from both approaches.
> I finished my packaging stuff nearly a month ago and contacted Alexander
> by private mail without response so far. My efforts are available at
>
> 	http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=ukl/can-utils.git debian/sid
>
> I'd like to get forward here. @Alexander: Maybe you can provide me with
> the work you did already, then I'll merge our approaches. Are you still
> interested in co-maintainance of can-utils? If not, are you OK when I
> take ownership of this bug and start looking for a sponsor?
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Alexander,

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 05:30:05PM +0400, Alexander Gerasiov wrote:
> Sorry guys. I'm totally busy with other tasks last month :-(. As I
> remember your package is quite ready for upload, so I'll do it
> tomorrow (without my changes, just add myself as an uploader if you
> don't mind). Ok?
I absolutely don't mind, after all I need some people knowing my work
when I want to become a DD :-)

If you still consider it useful to show me your work on packaging
can-utils, don't hesitiate to send it to me. Also it probably makes
sense to move the repository to collab-maint.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[Alexander GQ Gerasiov]

Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:30:05 +0400
Alexander Gerasiov <gq@cs.msu.su> wrote:

> Sorry guys. I'm totally busy with other tasks last month :-(. As I
> remember your package is quite ready for upload, so I'll do it
> tomorrow (without my changes, just add myself as an uploader if you
> don't mind). Ok?

As Uwe is worried about correctness I'd like to mention, that I did not
use his package as the base for last upload, but incorporated some of
lines he wrote into my package.

Package is in new queue right now and will be soon available in
unstable repository.

Thanks for your patience.

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hello Alexander!

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:44:48AM +0400, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:30:05 +0400
> Alexander Gerasiov <gq@cs.msu.su> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry guys. I'm totally busy with other tasks last month :-(. As I
> > remember your package is quite ready for upload, so I'll do it
> > tomorrow (without my changes, just add myself as an uploader if you
> > don't mind). Ok?
> 
> As Uwe is worried about correctness I'd like to mention, that I did not
> use his package as the base for last upload, but incorporated some of
> lines he wrote into my package.

That doesn't sound plausible to me given the fact that you imported
his debian/rules file and commented out his overrride_dh_* statements
[1].

If you had incorporated some of his changes, you'd just have use the
default rules file from the template.

You should also have asked yourself why Uwe had added those overrides
and not just silently commented them out. If someone adds extra
overrides, he usually has very good reasons. You should have asked Uwe
about that.

The package currently also includes the debian/README.source template
and git-related files (.gitignore, gbp.conf).

As someone who is sponsoring very often and has some experience with
reviewing packages now, can-utils wouldn't have passed my quality
requirements in its current state.

I can therefore fully understand that Uwe is upset and I think it
would be best if you asked the FTP Masters to have the package set to
REJECT in NEW and get into touch with Uwe to coordinate improving the
package.

> Package is in new queue right now and will be soon available in
> unstable repository.

It's actually been set to not be reviewed before February 28th to be
able to discuss this matter first.

Cheers,

Adrian

> [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/can-utils.git;a=blob;f=debian/rules;h=cfd19c845d1fa085679931a9817e4cfd8b23c481;hb=9f50da4df75f5ea00620f94f01cf1205ef16fdc5

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hi Adrian,

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 08:08:25AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:44:48AM +0400, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> > Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:30:05 +0400
> > Alexander Gerasiov <gq@cs.msu.su> wrote:
> > 
> > > Sorry guys. I'm totally busy with other tasks last month :-(. As I
> > > remember your package is quite ready for upload, so I'll do it
> > > tomorrow (without my changes, just add myself as an uploader if you
> > > don't mind). Ok?
> > 
> > As Uwe is worried about correctness I'd like to mention, that I did not
> > use his package as the base for last upload, but incorporated some of
> > lines he wrote into my package.
> 
> That doesn't sound plausible to me given the fact that you imported
> his debian/rules file and commented out his overrride_dh_* statements
> [1].
> 
> If you had incorporated some of his changes, you'd just have use the
> default rules file from the template.
> 
> You should also have asked yourself why Uwe had added those overrides
> and not just silently commented them out. If someone adds extra
> overrides, he usually has very good reasons. You should have asked Uwe
> about that.
This is wrong, the overrides are not from me. d/rules seems to be
Alexander's (well, or Joey Hess' and Craig Small's) work.

> > Package is in new queue right now and will be soon available in
> > unstable repository.
> 
> It's actually been set to not be reviewed before February 28th to be
> able to discuss this matter first.
I think the best will be when Alexander and I discuss the issue in
private. I don't see a need to pull that conflict into public.

Thanks
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On 02/24/2014 09:25 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> You should also have asked yourself why Uwe had added those overrides
>> and not just silently commented them out. If someone adds extra
>> overrides, he usually has very good reasons. You should have asked Uwe
>> about that.
> This is wrong, the overrides are not from me. d/rules seems to be
> Alexander's (well, or Joey Hess' and Craig Small's) work.

Ok, then I misunderstood your concerns. I apologize to Alexander
regarding this and take everything back ;).

>>> Package is in new queue right now and will be soon available in
>>> unstable repository.
>>
>> It's actually been set to not be reviewed before February 28th to be
>> able to discuss this matter first.
> I think the best will be when Alexander and I discuss the issue in
> private. I don't see a need to pull that conflict into public.

I agree. Still, you should post the results here.

Cheers,

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[Alexander GQ Gerasiov]

Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:08:25 +0100
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Hello Alexander!
> 
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:44:48AM +0400, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> > Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:30:05 +0400
> > Alexander Gerasiov <gq@cs.msu.su> wrote:
> > 
> > > Sorry guys. I'm totally busy with other tasks last month :-(. As I
> > > remember your package is quite ready for upload, so I'll do it
> > > tomorrow (without my changes, just add myself as an uploader if
> > > you don't mind). Ok?
> > 
> > As Uwe is worried about correctness I'd like to mention, that I did
> > not use his package as the base for last upload, but incorporated
> > some of lines he wrote into my package.
> 
> That doesn't sound plausible to me given the fact that you imported
> his debian/rules file and commented out his overrride_dh_* statements
> [1].
Unfortunately I missed to fixup pair of changes when build package,
that's why second revision was uploaded right after first.
You are talking about revision -1 which really had some issues.
Please comment on the last version available.

> 
> If you had incorporated some of his changes, you'd just have use the
> default rules file from the template.
> 
> You should also have asked yourself why Uwe had added those overrides
> and not just silently commented them out. If someone adds extra
> overrides, he usually has very good reasons. You should have asked Uwe
> about that.
I think you did not get clean with this or that's Uwe who mislead you.

Those commented out overrides were left in rules file from my previous
experiments, and not needed anymore. And they have nothing with Uwe's
package, I believe.

I can count all changes I took from his work:
Arch: linux-any (totally forget that SocketCAN is Linux specific)
Several strings in description field.

And that's all. =\

> 
> The package currently also includes the debian/README.source template
> and git-related files (.gitignore, gbp.conf).
Template README.source was also removed in -2 revision.
As for .gitignore and gbp.conf, this package is maintained under git
and git-buildpackage and I see no reason, why thees files should not be
included in debian/
I think some gbp related info should goes to README.source. One day
I'll write it.

> 
> As someone who is sponsoring very often and has some experience with
> reviewing packages now, can-utils wouldn't have passed my quality
> requirements in its current state.
I could not agree with you if we speak about revision -2.

> 
> I can therefore fully understand that Uwe is upset and I think it
> would be best if you asked the FTP Masters to have the package set to
> REJECT in NEW and get into touch with Uwe to coordinate improving the
> package.
[spend 15 minutes, explaining situation, but as Uwe prefer to continue
privately, I removed it]

Conclusion:
Looks like Uwe decided that I modified his package, removed him from
Maintainer and broke all around. And he started offense instead of
discussion.

Ok, I disagree, but understand why did he react like this. I think it's
possible to discuss this privately.

> 
> > Package is in new queue right now and will be soon available in
> > unstable repository.
> 
> It's actually been set to not be reviewed before February 28th to be
> able to discuss this matter first.
Well, I remember time when packages were held in new for 2-3 months =)

-- 
Regards, Alexander

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

Hi Alexander!

On 02/24/2014 09:59 AM, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> Unfortunately I missed to fixup pair of changes when build package,
> that's why second revision was uploaded right after first.
> You are talking about revision -1 which really had some issues.
> Please comment on the last version available.

Sure, I can have a look at the second revision. But you could also
just asked the FTP team to set the package on REJECT to be able
to sort out the issues, then do a clean upload.

I usually try to keep a clean package history.

>> If you had incorporated some of his changes, you'd just have use the
>> default rules file from the template.
>>
>> You should also have asked yourself why Uwe had added those overrides
>> and not just silently commented them out. If someone adds extra
>> overrides, he usually has very good reasons. You should have asked Uwe
>> about that.
> I think you did not get clean with this or that's Uwe who mislead you.

Yep. I misunderstood Uwe. From his first comments it appeared to me
that exactly that had happened. So, I apologize to you Alexander
and take my statements back.

> Those commented out overrides were left in rules file from my previous
> experiments, and not needed anymore. And they have nothing with Uwe's
> package, I believe.

Alright, thanks for the explanation.

> I can count all changes I took from his work:
> Arch: linux-any (totally forget that SocketCAN is Linux specific)
> Several strings in description field.
> 
> And that's all. =\

Ok, it appeared to me that the situation was the complete opposite of
that, i.e. you took Uwe's work and put your name onto it.

Thanks for the clarification.

>>
>> The package currently also includes the debian/README.source template
>> and git-related files (.gitignore, gbp.conf).
> Template README.source was also removed in -2 revision.

Good!

> As for .gitignore and gbp.conf, this package is maintained under git
> and git-buildpackage and I see no reason, why thees files should not be
> included in debian/

True. I am using gbp as well and I completely forgot about that. The
files shouldn't pop up in the actual package.

> I think some gbp related info should goes to README.source. One day
> I'll write it.

Good idea!

>>
>> As someone who is sponsoring very often and has some experience with
>> reviewing packages now, can-utils wouldn't have passed my quality
>> requirements in its current state.
> I could not agree with you if we speak about revision -2.

Well, unless you have fixed the copyright issues that Uwe has
mentioned, you will get a REJECT with absolute certainty.

Did you fix the copyright information? Are the sources from
Volkswagen actually covered by a free license?

> Conclusion:
> Looks like Uwe decided that I modified his package, removed him from
> Maintainer and broke all around. And he started offense instead of
> discussion.

Well, you see what poor communication leads to. When you decide
to let him join as a comaintainer, you should communicate such
changes, especially before doing uploads.

>>> Package is in new queue right now and will be soon available in
>>> unstable repository.
>>
>> It's actually been set to not be reviewed before February 28th to be
>> able to discuss this matter first.
> Well, I remember time when packages were held in new for 2-3 months =)

They still are. Depends on the package, Look at zfs-utils which has
been in NEW for 6 months now. Obviously no one dares to touch it.

Adrian

-- 
 .''`.  John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' :  Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `'   Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
  `-    GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546  0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Re: Bug#568303: can-utils Debian package

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hi Alexander, hi Adrian,

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:31:27AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 09:59 AM, Alexander GQ Gerasiov wrote:
> > I think you did not get clean with this or that's Uwe who mislead you.
> 
> Yep. I misunderstood Uwe. From his first comments it appeared to me
> that exactly that had happened. So, I apologize to you Alexander
> and take my statements back.
I also apologize to both of you, Alexander and Adrian. I wailed to
Adrian on irc that I'm unhappy with the package as is and bounced some
mails to him. I think I'm the major reason that Adrian got the details
wrong. Sorry. It's not always easy to communicate things properly on
irc, still more when you're peeved.

> > Those commented out overrides were left in rules file from my previous
> > experiments, and not needed anymore. And they have nothing with Uwe's
> > package, I believe.
> 
> Alright, thanks for the explanation.
> 
> > I can count all changes I took from his work:
> > Arch: linux-any (totally forget that SocketCAN is Linux specific)
> > Several strings in description field.
> > 
> > And that's all. =\
> 
> Ok, it appeared to me that the situation was the complete opposite of
> that, i.e. you took Uwe's work and put your name onto it.
That's how it felt to me, but technically that's wrong and most parts
were done by Alexander.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |