Hi, Ian and others. On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > tl/dr: > I think we should update parallel to not conflict with moreutils and > fix a couple of the other bugs (esp #674695 and #816058). > > Unless someone objects I will do (or sponsor) an NMU.
I am the maintainer of parallel and after I upgraded youtube-dl, I was just going to update parallel. OTOH, If you wish to NMU it, I'm fine with it too. (...) > For the same reason, the Conflicts is bad because someone might want > other functionality from moreutils together with GNU parallel (which > is suggested by the documentation for AFL, for example, and is fairly > widely used in scientific computing). Yes, scientific computing and anything that can take advantage of distributing loads to more machines (which is the case for some video reencoding enthusiasts). > I suggest that for now, we drop the Conflicts from parallel and rely > on the diversion. OK, just to reiterate and see if I got what you are trying to communicate, you think that a sane idea would be to keep the diversion and simply remove the declaration that the packages conflict? > If someone submits a set of patches to transition > us to an alternatives-based system then we should apply them. I agree and am willing to accept the patches. > This does not mean I don't disagree with some of Joey Hess's > criticisms in > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=665851#47 > > > The parallel package looks like the maintainer could do with some > help, looking at the package tracker. I can take a look and ship something quick'n'dirty, but something better would probably miss the deadlines posed by the release team, since I'm slightly short of time this week. The security bug should, definitely, be fixed, of course. When upgrading the package, I will try to stick to a "stable" upstream release. > I don't know if the maintainer is reading this. Dear maintainer, if > you are reading this, please don't take my NMU proposal as > aggressive. I would just like to help fix the program. I didn't take that in any way aggressive. In fact, I like it when people discuss the programs that I maintain (even better is discussion of programs that I write myself, but that's not the case here :) ). > If you have different ideas about what should be done please let me > know. My preferred idea would still be to split parallel from moreutils as, say, tollef-parallel, have it, then, use the alternatives solution with GNU parallel and let life go on. The first few versions of moreutils can be transitional in the sense that they recommend/suggest tollef-parallel, so that users interested in that version from moreutils can keep using it. In summary, I hope to update the parallel package up to this weekend. If you want to act faster, please, go ahead and NMU it. The only thing that I ask from anybody is to put verbose messages on the git commits. Thanks, -- Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA http://cynic.cc/blog/ : github.com/rbrito : profiles.google.com/rbrito DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
