Hello Chris! On 2/7/21 3:04 PM, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: >> I don't think we're doing ourselves a favor by rushing hotfixes in to get >> these >> packages into the next release. > > Given I saw you making this argument in another bug report - what > other options do we have? > > For packages that are not yet O:, or those well-connected like a key > package, we could only wait for someone to show up and do the work. > How long are we willing to wait?
I think the problem is that hardly anyone was aware of the situation which is why people weren't actually waiting but simply didn't care. If I had known much earlier that cdrkit is still that relevant, I would have switched priorities and worked on cdrkit much earlier. I thought that the only reason for the package's existence were some features in mkisofs that are present in cdrkit but not yet in xorroisofs, primarily the support for legacy HFS filesystems which we needed in Debian Ports for creating images that can be read on older Apple Macintosh systems. Legacy HFS support was the primary reason why I volunteered to adopt the package. And all of a sudden I'm notified that cdrkit is way more important and is actually needed by multiple packages. > Right now we can only go with "this was good enough in the last > release" and ignore (possibly perceived) larger problems until after > the release. And then we hope for the volunteers to show up and do > the necessary cleanups. I personally do not understand why there needs to be such a hard deadline. Sure, we don't want the release process to take forever, but I think key packages should be in shape before starting with a release. If we realize there are some important key packages that are in bad shape, why should we be so strict with the testing freeze? Why not let these improvements in? Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
