ubuntu-389-directory-server team mailing list archive

[David Sugar <david.sugar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not yet have motu status, so I cannot advocate, at least in the
sense of setting "advocations" in revu, otherwise I would have done so
already.

Kai-Cheung Leung wrote:
> Actually I was the person who drafted the spec and earmarked it for
> the UDS, but this does not attract attention.
> 
> Now I know you, and would you please have a look at and advocate *all*
> 389 packages, since you know them so well.  Then they will attract
> more attention and they just need one more advocation to make it into
> Karmic.
> 
> It would be a shame if Ubuntu still does not have the 389 server!!!!
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:39 AM, David Sugar<david.sugar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have only been trying to get my sipwitch package in since the start of
>> Jaunty.  But yes, I agree, and not just speaking about 389, or even
>> sipwitch, we do have clearly ready packages waiting in revu that seem to
>> get stalled or otherwise forgotten after they have been worked on by the
>> original submitter, corrected, and are now basically ready for archive.
>> Looking at some of them, this has been the case even over multiple
>> Ubuntu releases.  It is also not that we have an overwhelming number of
>> such packages waiting that I can see.  I think this is bad because when
>> this happens it clearly discourages further participation in the
>> process, and that is not what anyone wants to see happen.
>>
>> I will add that while it could make sense to go through Debian and then
>> try to get a package into Ubuntu as a merge request, my own personal
>> experiences in Debian in respect to getting new packages in if you do
>> not know anyone there have actually been far worse to date, and over a
>> period of years.
>>
>> In the case of 389, I find it particularly unfortunate that nobody had
>> chosen to look at it before me, especially given that it was identified
>> as a spec for Karmic and topic at UDS, for things like the naming issues
>> could clearly have been identified and resolved early, and other issues
>> were clearly small and easy to resolve.  At present I see no reason for
>> it not to move forward, although I choose not to review each related
>> package as I had hoped others who could advocate and archive it would
>> look at the remaining ones and would become involved.
>>
>> Maybe the place to start is to contact whomever was responsible for the
>> spec at UDS.  Another approach I could suggest is to bring it up at one
>> of the community council irc meetings and/or a related Karmic release
>> meeting.  Maybe I should also look at the remaining packages in the interim.
>>
>> Leung, Kai-Cheung wrote:
>>> I saw the packages being uploaded to our ppa and revu.  However there
>>> are no movements in REVU and are many 389-related packages are not
>>> reviewed.
>>>
>>> David, We really need to get our packages approved and entered into
>>> Jaunty before the 389 can make unto Jaunty!

begin:vcard
fn:David Sugar
n:Sugar;David
org:Canonical
adr:;;;;;;United States
email;internet:david.sugar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:Mobile Developer
tel;work:+1 609 465 5336
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.canonical.com
version:2.1
end:vcard