This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Counter-ITP of doxygen (was: Re: Please upload: doxygen-1.4.2_20050410-1 (n'th take))

Christopher Faylor wrote:
I've waited several days to respond to this because I wanted to make
sure that I was in the proper emotional state and didn't just fire off a
knee-jerk reaction.


Nevertheless, I remain appalled by this turn of events.  I saw nothing
in Hans' email which indicated that he's unwilling to be cooperative
about packaging problems so I see no reason to pull the package from
him.  Hans is not the first person to have to go through a moderate
amount of pain before getting the packaging right and if the biggest
complaint of his source packaging is that it doesn't contain the cygwin
README, then that is not a big deal.

I don't know how to resolve this situation but I do know for sure that
neither Corinna nor I are going to "reward" someone by making them a
package maintainer after essentially publicly insulting another

I feel a bit annoyed by the above, since I did not intentionally insult anyone.

After multiple rounds of email dealing with a single, particularly visible, issue - version numbering - which is documented in the Package Contibutor's Guide, I took a more in-depth look at the packaging, and discovered that the source package did not contain everything necessary to recreate the binary package, it did not conform to either of the packaging schemas defined as acceptable by the Package Contributor's Guide, nor reasonably documented alternative, that it did not strip the binaries (required by the Package Contributor's Guide), and that the version number formats were still incorrect.

Considering the difficulty involved in getting to that point, and realizing that fixing all of the above would amount to an almost complete rewrite of the packaging script - or, indeed, replacing it with the g-b-s - I concluded that this was not a review process that I could guide to a successful conclusion.
There wasn't anyone else who was reviewing the later iterations of the packages, so I felt that if I was to simply back away, the package would left in an unapproved vacuum.

Having involved myself with doxygen to the extent that I had by then, I felt obligated to seek a successful conclusion if in any way I could, and saw packaging doxygen myself as s possible route. I recognized that there was a certain potential for emotional upset, and after spending a couple of days wondering how best to phrase things to mitigate that potential, I opted for a simple, brief, matter-of-fact presentation. Evidently, that misfired quite spectacularly.

At no point did I intend or imply any disparagement towards Hans.

I'll try to avoid sensitive conversations in the future, since I seem to be somewhat inept at translating my intentions into text.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]