Bug#926042: [Pkg-privacy-maintainers] Bug#926042: drawbacks of not having tbl in testing..
Hi! On 27.05.19 15:02, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:18:54PM +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: >> It would be useful to know with which statements or assumptions you do >> not agree with and why - so that the discussion may become more >> productive & helpful. > > "cannot be maintained in stable". I think this can at least be tried. > And IMO its better to have tbl in stable until the 5th or 7th > pointrelease and then have it removed (if it has to be done), than not > having tbl at all, never. > >>> anyway, i just want to point out that 'maintaining tbl in stretch via >>> stretch-backports' doesnt work because tbl is not in buster and thus, if >>> this bug gets retitled to 'tbl should not be part of bullseye', >>> maintaining tbl in buster via bullseye-backports will also not work. >> Do you have any suggestion on how to handle this? > > maintain tbl in stable. I have re-read intrigeri's arguments [1] and I entirely agree with his assessments: 1. updates are required because of changes of GPG keys, TLS certs etc. 2. apparmor profiles regularly need updates because of upstream changes that we are generally not made aware of in time by upstream and only discover after the fact. There is a huge lack of communication here. 3. lack of time & energy to backport fixes on a regular basis. i.e. I don't see us maintaining tbl in stable. That is certainly a sad state. But reality is that most of us have too many other things on their plate and do not see this as a priority. I volunteer to update the Debian wiki page to document how to install torbrowser-launcher once Buster is out. That said, if *you* want to maintain tbl in stable I have no objections. Cheers! Ulrike [1] Message-Id: <87zhpcb569.fsf@manticora>, email from march 30, 2019
Bug#926042: drawbacks of not having tbl in testing..
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:18:54PM +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > It would be useful to know with which statements or assumptions you do > not agree with and why - so that the discussion may become more > productive & helpful. "cannot be maintained in stable". I think this can at least be tried. And IMO its better to have tbl in stable until the 5th or 7th pointrelease and then have it removed (if it has to be done), than not having tbl at all, never. > > anyway, i just want to point out that 'maintaining tbl in stretch via > > stretch-backports' doesnt work because tbl is not in buster and thus, if > > this bug gets retitled to 'tbl should not be part of bullseye', > > maintaining tbl in buster via bullseye-backports will also not work. > Do you have any suggestion on how to handle this? maintain tbl in stable. -- tschau, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money... It is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few... You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#926042: drawbacks of not having tbl in testing..
Hi Holger, On 27.05.19 11:56, Holger Levsen wrote: > i'm not sure I agree with the assumptions from this bug report but It would be useful to know with which statements or assumptions you do not agree with and why - so that the discussion may become more productive & helpful. > anyway, i just want to point out that 'maintaining tbl in stretch via > stretch-backports' doesnt work because tbl is not in buster and thus, if > this bug gets retitled to 'tbl should not be part of bullseye', > maintaining tbl in buster via bullseye-backports will also not work. Do you have any suggestion on how to handle this? Cheers, Ulrike
Bug#926042: drawbacks of not having tbl in testing..
hi, i'm not sure I agree with the assumptions from this bug report but anyway, i just want to point out that 'maintaining tbl in stretch via stretch-backports' doesnt work because tbl is not in buster and thus, if this bug gets retitled to 'tbl should not be part of bullseye', maintaining tbl in buster via bullseye-backports will also not work. (I just noted this bug now by chance, that's why I'm late to this party.) -- tschau, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
