Am Di., 16. Jan. 2024 um 20:41 Uhr schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de>:
> > Who says I am? I am running testing. Also, getting security updates > from unstable is actually > > recommended behavior, so the stuff around "FrankenDebian" is > contradicting itself. > > There is no version 2.0.x in Debian stable nor stable-backports yet, so > unless you built the > package yourself from the unstable sources or installed the Flatpak > version, you created a > "FrankenDebian". > To be quoting myself: *I am running testing**. AKA Trixie. *So no, there's no FrankenDebian at work. > > And, no, the wiki page regarding "FrankenDebian" is not contradicting > itself because security > updates are provided through debian-security. These updates are built to > target Debian stable, > so it's perfectly fine to install them without risking to break anything. > It is not contradicting itself page-wide, but wiki-wide. This is the Wiki entry for Debian Testing, where it literally recommends to do what the "FrankenDebian" Wiki page recommends not to do: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting *It is a good idea to install security updates from unstable since they take extra time to reach testing and the security team only releases updates to unstable.* > > Entitled? Well that's rich. The point of the whole bug reporting system > is exactly what we > > are doing here. So yes, if you are unwilling to maintain the > package, which will always > > include getting bug reports if things don't behave as intended, then > don't do it. > > Not really. If someone steps up to maintain something, it doesn't > automatically mean they > are responsible for supporting all possible configurations that exist > within Debian which > is what you are asking for. The package works perfectly fine on KDE which > is what I am using > myself. > This is exactly what it's supposed to mean. Packages distributed by Debian are obviously required to not be broken when they hit stable. Otherwise an update wouldn't be accepted to be sent to stable. And since neither Debian with KDE nor Debian with Gnome is a separate distribution, obviously a package is supposed to work with both. That's why all KDE packages will pull in all necessary dependencies required to run in Gnome (or any other DE offered by Debian) and vice versa. If any package would be allowed in stable in a theoretical future where it only supports Wayland and not X while not all available DEs would be supporting Wayland would be very questionable. And that's just another version of this exact problem. > > The limitations around GNOME support are an upstream issue and not related > to packaging which > is what I am doing. Claiming that a particular issue that is not a serious > bug must be fixed > before the next release is something that I would call entitlement. If you > have figured out > how to fix this particular problem, you are free to send a patch to me or > upstream. That's > how it works with community-maintained software. > It's obviously serious since it literally renders the software unusable for some users. If you have a different opinion, you should really re-read the severity levels' definitions: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities *important: a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, without rendering it completely unusable to everyone.* This is literally what this is. > > Neither me nor the upstream maintainer are actually getting paid to > provide this application > on Linux or on Debian, so it's perfectly fine that we get to decide how we > spend our free > time. > Nobody said otherwise. But literally with a bug this severe v2 can't and shouldn't be accepted into stable with Trixie. And if nobody fixes it, it's questionable how long this package will be accepted to stay in the repos at all.
