Hello Florian and Steve, On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:40:00PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:12:31PM +0100, Florian Vessaz wrote: > > We've got no reply from the current maintainers to this bug report since > > the approximately 2 and a half years it has been opened. I thus think > > it's safe to presume the current maintainers have no interest in keeping > > PAM up-to-date in Debian.
Sorry for not having found time to look at this. I'm still very interested in seeing improvements on the PAM side, I'm just very short on spare time. FWIW I think the chance for getting changes into buster has most likely passed already. Atleast I wouldn't feel comfortable introducing alot of changes this late in the release cycle. I think it's better to target experimental now and then upload to unstable early in the bullseye cycle. > > Wow, that's an incredible conclusion less than 2 weeks after a maintainer > upload. > > It happens that fly-by NMUs are a lot less work than properly maintaining a > package. So yes, there were a series of NMUs from developers who had no > investment in the long-term maintainability of the package in the time it > took me to get the VCS history converted into something supported and do a > maintainer upload. > > (I appreciate your past efforts to handle this migration, but in your own > words "the history of the packaging is not pretty" and I was unwilling to > accept an incomplete history of the packaging.) Thanks for joining the discussion. I'm sure we can elaborate eternally on our definitions of "properly maintaining" and the tradeoffs between pretty git histories and having users suffer the consequenses of the outstanding bugs for yet another release cycle, but lets proceed to something more productive. [...] > Anyway, consider this an objection to salvaging of the pam package. > > I am happy to take a look at your work to forward-port the patches onto pam > 1.3. Would you be willing to rebase > https://gitlab.gnugen.ch/fvessaz/pkg-pam.git onto > https://salsa.debian.org/vorlon/pam.git ? As it's not a trivial rebase to do I've "recreated" much of it on top of the new git repo. Cherry-picking from Florians tree where possible, reimporting the upstream release from scratch, using my own tree of patches from my previous effort[1], and resolved conflicts where they appeared when cherry-picking, added some new commits as well. In other words, credits to Florian and blame for breakage should likely be assigned to me. My result is thus not exactly equivalent to Florians tree. Diffing debian/patches between our trees can be an interesting read as it's two independent rebasing of the existing patches. Please see https://salsa.debian.org/ah/pam/commits/ah/master (see also the ah/upstream branch.) Hoping we can make progress here because the things I'm interested in seeing fixed are still to come (but to find motivation to try to allocate the time there needs to be some signs of it having a chance to be a useful investment). Regards, Andreas Henriksson [1]: https://people.debian.org/~ah/pkg-pam/
