Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:59:32PM +0100, Dominik George wrote: > > most of your concerns are being addressed already (restoring history and > > such). > The current master branch of the repository you named[1] starts with > > > xrdp (0.9.0~git20150318-1~alpha1) teckids; urgency=medium > > * New upstream git snapshot > * Document legal issues at https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/issues/232 > > -- Thorsten Glaser <thorsten.gla...@teckids.org> Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:22:35 > +0100 > > > which contradicts your statement.
No, it doesn't. You simply need a grammar book - I said your concerns „are being addressed“, not „have already been addressed“. I have a list of tasks to do on the package, which includes both your issues 1 and 1, so… > I also do not like that you just drop > my concerns 1. and 2. which are not dealt with - otherwise I would not > have asked. …I did not drop anything. > > > Please do not make it more difficult, an experienced DD (Mike Gabriel) is > >working with us. > I also do not like this "proof by authority" attitude. I would not > claim that I'm more right since I'm a longer experienced DD than Mike. Your attitude of simply casting criticism in our direction is not helpful either. I am currently trying to address all the issues Mike had when we asked him to sponsor, which almost match yours 1:1. > > > > 3. Why do you plan > > > > > > a) a non-official (random?) Git commit rather than a release? > > > > Because there is no current release. Upstream does not make releases > > anymore. The picked commit is not random. It is verified to work and > > includes a lot of stuff we negotiated with upstream (license issues, > > patches from Debian, etc.). It's the best we could get, and it works. > That's nice to know and I'd love to have something well tested. My only > interest is to have some reliably working xrdp quickly. In that case, please let us finalise the work ;). I expect it to be done until middle of the week. > > > > b) uploading to experimental rather than unstable? > > > > Because the package is a major change (e.g. switching from x11vnc to > > x11rdp by default). > That's not a good reason for choosing experimental per se. If there are > no depnedencies to adapt to undergo a transition a well tested package > can perfectly go to unstable. Experimental is close to not tested and > if you want some relevant number of users besides your closed circle you > should push to unstable soon. Otherwise you might get it in short before > the freeze which might incover problems to late. OK, thanks for the hint! > > I insist that the parallel development of a totally separate package is > very unfortunate, I agree. Looking at the changelog, you might find that I did not decide or do that, but that I took over the new package and am now „cleaning up“. > has caused duplicated work for me since it was not > announced. Well, actually, I do not think this is entirely my fault. See, there was an ITA, and that should have made you ask before doing any work. You knew that I was working on it, so you could have asked for a status before doing separate work. That said, it was *you* who decided to work on it, when in fact there was a clear information that someone else is doing it right now. > I realised that you basically ignored history, which is > simply wrong. Yes, it is, and I know it. It was not my decision, and after Mike raised his concerns about it as well, I started rebasing the work on the old repository. But it takes some time. Please let me finish it. > I also have further concerns: > […] After fixing the issues Mike listed, I will happily come back to you to find out if there is anything else that could be improved. Cheers, Nik -- PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296 Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918 Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V. Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)
