>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon <matt...@debian.org> writes:
Matthew> While it's understandable, I am saddened and a bit worried Matthew> by the "it's too much hassle to fix dpkg's usr-merge Matthew> support, let's not bother" message I seem to be getting Matthew> from these threads. I agree with you. I think there are some bugs that are infrequent and are not worth fixing. This is not one of them. I don't think a dpkg fix should block usr-merge, but I do think fixing this issue and fixing the underlying governance issues are important. I respectfully disagree with Helmut who is pushing for an acceptable technical solution to be on the table before considering acting. As others have pointed out, it's actually hard to come up with the energy to improve and refine technical solutions. Doing that in a climate where you face a political battle at the end is not a realistic ask in our community at this time. I think that the TC is one of the few bodies who could take leadership on this issue. You cannot design (or write) the patch. You can do various things though. You could confirm your willingness to solve this issue even over a dpkg override. (The TC's failure to act on the warning about unsupported configurations leaves this in significant doubt and certainly left a bad taste in my mouth at least). You could review the existing patch and explain why it's not good enough, or since reviews already exist, you could decide as a body which parts of those reviews need to be addressed. You could describe what review criteria or procedure you would use to move forward. While I appreciate that you are currently expressing your personal views, I think the TC needs to express views as a body to move forward. --Sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature