Hello Andreas and Steve, On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 01:29:07PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > 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.
I'll see what happens when Buster is released, but it currently appears to me that not having a reasonably up-to-date version of PAM available might, for me, be a deal breaker that will make me reconsider my usage and support of Debian. > > Wow, that's an incredible conclusion less than 2 weeks after 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. Thank you for joining, I'm glad that it finally looks possible to get an up-to-date PAM version included in Debian. I would have greatly appreciated to have gotten a feedback on my contribution from 2 years ago instead of it being totally ignored. During those two years, I had more than enough time that would have enabled me to improve my contribution if I had received a feedback. I'm also sure everyone who took the time to open bug reports would appreciate for those bug reports to be followed up. Anyway, let's focus on the present. > [...] > > Anyway, consider this an objection to salvaging of the pam package. Is this a confirmation from your part that you now have the motivation and time available in order to upload up-to-date PAM versions and properly answer the bug reports that pilled up over the years? > > 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.) I also took the time to work on my branch in order to get something to compare and to ensure I have an understanding of the changes. I also included the commit you added to update debian/watch. See https://gitlab.gnugen.ch/fvessaz/pkg-pam, the master branch is the updated one and 2018/master is the one from December. I did not update the changelog entry I previously added; yours might be more appropriate. I only took the time to have a cursory look at the differences today. However, it currently appears that they are relatively small and contained in debian/patches. I'll take the time to review those differences tomorrow or Friday night. > 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). I'm, also hoping we can make progress. :-) Cheers, -- Florian
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
