Re: scenefx upload dispute / request for review

Le ven. 14 août 2026 à 23:10, Andrey Rakhmatullin <[email protected]> a
écrit :

> On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 08:47:09PM +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> >Dear Debian mentors,
> >
> >I recently filed the ITP and RFS for my package 'scenefx' and uploaded
> the package to mentors.
> >Another uploader has since submitted a package that references my ITP in
> the changelog, but it is not a collaborative submission and should not be
> treated as a straightforward continuation of my work. They are actively
> refusing to discuss with me about it. I have noted that their salsa
> repository predates mine, but I don't see that as a reason to why upload on
> top of my perfectly fine package just to change the maintainer field and
> introduce more lintian warnings.
> >
> >I am requesting a review of the upload history and clarification on which
> submission should be considered the active package for review. Sorry if I
> am bothering you, I appreciate your work for debian.
>
> One of the main purposes of an ITP is to serve as a mutex. Somebody
> uploading a package without even filing an ITP is the losing side.
>
> That said, if mentors disallowed uploads of the same package name by
> different accounts it would be a much more clear situation.
>

Out of curiosity I checked the git history of the two salsa repositories:
nickh/scenefx
damian/scenefx
and diffed them.

Also, I compared the git log of both.

My conclusions:
- damian is the first to declare an ITP the 30th of july, and later to
upload a draft to mentor. However, the packaging skills are missing. Many
obvious mistakes.
- nickh is the first to have a debian/ dir that looks okay the 22th of
july. However, no ITP, no communication.

Both are wrong, in the sense they should have worked together.

cc-ing nickh for that reason.

Please: work together. You need it.

Jérémy