Hi Kernel Team,
I'm the maintainer of iw, which currently has me as the only Maintainer,
and packaging is hosted under debian/ on salsa. I think it would be
better to have the package maintained by the kernel team (with me as an Uploader), and hosted under kernel-team/ on salsa.
To be clear: I want to keep maintaining the package, but given that it's widely used I think it's better to allow non-NMU uploads from a relevant
team (iw upstream is on kernel.org).
The feedback I've got on IRC is positive, but I'd like to get a +1 on
the mailing list, so there's a record of the decision. Are you happy
with the move? If the answer is positive I'll request salsa access, open
a salsa ticket to move the project and update d/control.
(This case is almost identical to what happened with iproute2 [1].)
Thanks,
Paride
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2022/04/msg00002.html
Hi Kernel Team,
I'm the maintainer of iw, which currently has me as the only Maintainer, and packaging is hosted under debian/ on salsa. I think it would be
better to have the package maintained by the kernel team (with me as an Uploader), and hosted under kernel-team/ on salsa.
To be clear: I want to keep maintaining the package, but given that it's widely used I think it's better to allow non-NMU uploads from a relevant team (iw upstream is on kernel.org).
The feedback I've got on IRC is positive, but I'd like to get a +1 on
the mailing list, so there's a record of the decision. Are you happy
with the move? If the answer is positive I'll request salsa access, open
a salsa ticket to move the project and update d/control.
(This case is almost identical to what happened with iproute2 [1].)
Thanks,
Paride
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2022/04/msg00002.html
Hi again,
I just noticed that iw 5.19 is out and I'd like to package it. Looks
like a good occasion to move the repo under the kernel team.
I'm totally fine with a NACK, but it would be a pity to skip what I
believe is an improvement because my previous email drowned in
automated
mail, which I have the impression is what happened.
Cc: Ben Hutchings, as he gave a +1 to the iproute2 proposal [1].
On Wed, 2022-06-01 at 14:11 +0200, Paride Legovini wrote:
Hi Kernel Team,
I'm the maintainer of iw, which currently has me as the only Maintainer, >>> and packaging is hosted under debian/ on salsa. I think it would be
better to have the package maintained by the kernel team (with me as an
Uploader), and hosted under kernel-team/ on salsa.
To be clear: I want to keep maintaining the package, but given that it's >>> widely used I think it's better to allow non-NMU uploads from a relevant >>> team (iw upstream is on kernel.org).
The feedback I've got on IRC is positive, but I'd like to get a +1 on
the mailing list, so there's a record of the decision. Are you happy
with the move? If the answer is positive I'll request salsa access, open >>> a salsa ticket to move the project and update d/control.
(This case is almost identical to what happened with iproute2 [1].)
Thanks,
Paride
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2022/04/msg00002.html
Hi again,
I just noticed that iw 5.19 is out and I'd like to package it. Looks
like a good occasion to move the repo under the kernel team.
I'm totally fine with a NACK, but it would be a pity to skip what I
believe is an improvement because my previous email drowned in
automated
mail, which I have the impression is what happened.
Cc: Ben Hutchings, as he gave a +1 to the iproute2 proposal [1].
I'd be happy to accept iw into team maintenance, if there are no
objections.
Our package repositories generally have CI enabled, so I've just opened
a merge request to do that for iw.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
Uptime: | 160:22:20 |
Calls: | 10,385 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 14,056 |
Messages: | 6,416,492 |