[gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed: dev-db/sqlite

[gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed: dev-db/sqlite

[Mike Gilbert]

This is a call out for Gentoo developers who would be interested in
maintaining the dev-db/sqlite package. The current (proxied)
maintainer is somewhat difficult to work with, and I would prefer that
a full developer take this over. The base-system project would
probably be willing to co-maintain this if desired.

There is an open QA bug [1] regarding the large set of undocumented
patches that are being applied in the stable ebuilds. The current
~arch versions of dev-db/sqlite drop these patches, and it would be
good for someone to do some testing of reverse dependencies.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/825278

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed: dev-db/sqlite

[Jakov Smolić]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1184 bytes --]



On 1/14/22 6:53 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> This is a call out for Gentoo developers who would be interested in
> maintaining the dev-db/sqlite package. The current (proxied)
> maintainer is somewhat difficult to work with, and I would prefer that
> a full developer take this over. The base-system project would
> probably be willing to co-maintain this if desired.

I'm interested in maintaining this package. From what I've investigated,
other major distributions don't apply any similar patches which means
that we are likely to stop carrying most (or even all) of the current
patches.
As this it obviously a high profile package with lots of reverse
dependencies it would be good to have another developer or a project
(such as base-system) co-maintaining to ensure that the package is
properly taken care of at all times.

> There is an open QA bug [1] regarding the large set of undocumented
> patches that are being applied in the stable ebuilds. The current
> ~arch versions of dev-db/sqlite drop these patches, and it would be
> good for someone to do some testing of reverse dependencies.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/825278
> 

-- 
Jakov


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed: dev-db/sqlite

[Peter Stuge]

Mike Gilbert wrote:
> The current (proxied) maintainer is somewhat difficult to work with

Why is Arfrever being treated so bad here? To me, it looks like
you're the one who is difficult to work with. :\


Jakov Smolić wrote:
> From what I've investigated, other major distributions don't apply
> any similar patches which means that we are likely to stop carrying
> most (or even all) of the current patches.

What kind of silly groupthink is this? I expect Gentoo to champion choice.


Mike Gilbert wrote:
> There is an open QA bug [1] regarding the large set of undocumented
> patches that are being applied in the stable ebuilds.

Arfrever is active in the bug you linked, has provided explanations
for the patches and prepared to restructure the patches so that they
can be gated by local USE flags, has made several different concrete
suggestions for possible implementations and requested feedback, but
has received no reply in the bug and instead there's now this
backstabbing discussion on this list.

Really?


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed: dev-db/sqlite

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2501 bytes --]



> On 14 Jan 2022, at 23:10, Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> 
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> The current (proxied) maintainer is somewhat difficult to work with
> 
> Why is Arfrever being treated so bad here? To me, it looks like
> you're the one who is difficult to work with. :\
> 

floppym is not obligated to work with somebody if he finds it
difficult.

> 
> Jakov Smolić wrote:
>> From what I've investigated, other major distributions don't apply
>> any similar patches which means that we are likely to stop carrying
>> most (or even all) of the current patches.
> 
> What kind of silly groupthink is this? I expect Gentoo to champion choice.

Adding in a huge heap of patches which exceed the tree limits, have
no justification within them, and nobody else needs is a good reason
to dump them.

If someone actually wants them, that's another matter.

Even if they are being kept, justification for them should be made
so that others know why we're doing it, why it's worth rebasing them,
why we're changing the default behaviour of SQLite, ...

(This is all worth doing anyway, but Gentoo, if we're going to do
tropes, also doesn't like to deviate from upstream without
justification.)

Please don't bring out this cliched "choice" trope just because
we're discussing something. Obviously if they're actually useful
in an application, we can talk about keeping them.

> 
> 
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> There is an open QA bug [1] regarding the large set of undocumented
>> patches that are being applied in the stable ebuilds.
> 
> Arfrever is active in the bug you linked, has provided explanations
> for the patches and prepared to restructure the patches so that they
> can be gated by local USE flags, has made several different concrete
> suggestions for possible implementations and requested feedback, but
> has received no reply in the bug and instead there's now this
> backstabbing discussion on this list.
> 

You've missed discussions on IRC and some of the bugs _have_
gone unanswered (in particular https://bugs.gentoo.org/825278 <https://bugs.gentoo.org/825278>
which started this all off).

Also, we were waiting several months for new SQLite which
blocked security bumps for e.g. seamonkey.

He has also received replies on the bug.

> Really?
> 

You've intervened in something where you don't know all the
circumstances, including the history of the contributor,
with an aggressive tone. Really?

sam


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4103 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed: dev-db/sqlite

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 6:10 PM Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se> wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > There is an open QA bug [1] regarding the large set of undocumented
> > patches that are being applied in the stable ebuilds.
>
> Arfrever is active in the bug you linked, has provided explanations
> for the patches and prepared to restructure the patches so that they
> can be gated by local USE flags, has made several different concrete
> suggestions for possible implementations and requested feedback, but
> has received no reply in the bug and instead there's now this
> backstabbing discussion on this list.

There was no visible progress on the bug for a month and a half. Some
proposals/questions appeared once I suggested giving the package to
someone else in IRC.

I don't wish to spend my time providing guidance that will likely be
ignored and carefully reviewing his work on this package. I would much
rather hand the package off to someone who can work on it without
direct supervision.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer needed: dev-db/sqlite

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 1:07 PM Jakov Smolić <jsmolic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 1/14/22 6:53 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> > This is a call out for Gentoo developers who would be interested in
> > maintaining the dev-db/sqlite package. The current (proxied)
> > maintainer is somewhat difficult to work with, and I would prefer that
> > a full developer take this over. The base-system project would
> > probably be willing to co-maintain this if desired.
>
> I'm interested in maintaining this package. From what I've investigated,
> other major distributions don't apply any similar patches which means
> that we are likely to stop carrying most (or even all) of the current
> patches.
> As this it obviously a high profile package with lots of reverse
> dependencies it would be good to have another developer or a project
> (such as base-system) co-maintaining to ensure that the package is
> properly taken care of at all times.

Thanks. I have updated metadata.xml to reflect this.