On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:33:32 +1030 Ron <r...@debian.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:09:21PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > > It seems you're only interested in impartial and non-partisan voices > > when they happen to back your position. I am impartial and non-partisan, > > and formed my opinion by reading the bugs and your emails. > > And "your opinion" still hasn't said even a single word to show that you > understand the technical problem here, or to offer any solution to it. > The problem which doesn't just magically go away regardless of who might > implement it.
Even if your technical concerns were correct, they do not justify your handling of the package. Saying that your actions have been wrong, and the package needs to be handled differently, does not require addressing the technical CGI issues in any way. You have no basis to insist that people care about the CGI issue or try to solve it before commenting on other handling of the package. > > If you indeed welcome opinions from people like me, your statements > > above are a little odd. > > I think you missed the bit about "comprehending the problem and building > consensus on solutions" - because if this is all you have to offer then > no, "opinions" from people "like you" are neither helpful nor welcome. > Even if they 100% agree with me. They are just a toxic symptom of people > still ignoring the hard technical problem. "The problem" here is the way you've blocked the package at an ancient version. Fixing this does not require creating a perfect CGI framework or in any other way fixing all upstream issues and making the software perfect. Maybe _you_ really care about the CGI issue. But if nobody - including you - cares enough to create a perfect solution, then it'll be broken. Too bad, but even if you're really disappointed, holding the package indefinitely at an obsolete version is not an acceptable response. Again, that nobody has created a perfect upstream does not justify your handling of the package, and you don't get to blame others or call their behavior "toxic" because of that. > details of _what_ we ought to do. If we don't solve that, then who does > it is kind of irrelevant, there'll still be a Hard Problem that someone > won't be happy with. You keep talking about Hard Problems and how others must solve them to be allowed to criticize your actions or actually do anything to change the status quo that you've failed to improve for several years. That's bullshit. If someone packages a new upstream without solving those issues, that'll be perfectly acceptable. Fixing software to be perfect is not a requirement for packaging, and creating a package that lacks some desired functionality when upstream lacks it is OK. The way you've handled the package is not OK.
