On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 03:17:11PM +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > > Sounds fine, let's file a RoM > > Are you nuts? You just said, it's your favourite! Why do you want to > kill it?
Well, yes, I am a bit nuts, but here's why.
I think we can all agree the current situation is broken. Fixes in newer
versions aren't getting backported, which means either the maintainer
isn't interested in backporting bugfixes to stable (it's a lot of work,
I understand it), or users don't report bugs to the BTS, going right
upstream, and the maintainer isn't aware of them (which might explain
why upstream is seeing bugs from users in Ubuntu and Debian).
Even if it's just from testing and the next stable release.
However, ore and more, I'm becoming a bit concerend about leaf packages
we maintain in stable that have their own release schedule, where they
do significat testing to ensure no regressions or breakages. We don't
have a good story for updating a package like this (short of backports,
but even that isn't a clear win).
This wouldn't be the first removal because an upstream isn't happy, and
it won't be the last.
At the very least, CC'ing ftpmaster@ and asking what they think, the
obvious response is "Sure, remove it".
I'm not going to tell someone with any fancy hat I might have hanging up
to maintain something against their will, or back a decision to piss off
your upstream.
So, let's make a deal. I see a two outcomes that are tolerable:
- ${BUGS} in xscreensaver get a backport to the version in stable, and
a s-p-u, and upstream tells distro users to report bugs with the distros.
- xscreensaver is removed from stable, unstable stays up to date. This
doesn't make upstream happy until next release.
The SRMs might have something to say about the first ("Is this a RC bug,
why are you backportting a papercut bug"), and I've started to become
annoyed with the second type of package.
Anyway, my two cents. This entire discussion appears to be a pit of
angry emotions and no real communication. That's a shame. So this will
be the last I'll say on this until (if?) you file a RoM. In that case,
likely dak will reply on my behalf.
Cheers,
Paul
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
