On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:16:34 +1030 Ron <r...@debian.org> wrote: > If we run with your proposal, what are you actually suggesting we tell > the people who'd be upset by the loss of htags without notice in Stretch? > Because I don't really see how you've addressed that here. > > AFAICS, there's just either an implicit "Sucks to be you", or an > implication that this is a simple "regression" which might be fixed > by sending patches upstream.
Assuming the htags functionality really can't be supported with a newer upstream version: tell people that the functionality is no longer available in current GLOBAL. If someone - including you - thinks this is a major problem and wants to provide an alternative, a fork providing this functionality can be packaged. Under a name other than "global". > FWIW, I actually agree with a lot of the general rules of thumb that > you outlined here, about how things should work in the normal case. > But this isn't really a "normal" case, if it was we wouldn't be talking > about this here at all. What to do would be obvious to everyone. There's nothing particularly "abnormal" about disagreeing with upstream decisions. What is unusual, and is the reason why this has been escalated here, is how badly you have handled the situation in your packaging. > The group complaining loudly now have basically squandered the entire > release cycle by not reporting actionable bugs about what they need, > and haven't sent any patches to remedy that. And they are proposing If anyone has "squandered the release cycle", it's you. You already knew, or should have known, that the package was in an untenable state. You've failed to fix the situation for years. You don't get to blame other people for that. >
