On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:08:06PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > There have been two responses to your proposal so far, neither of > which particularly looks to be in favor of your plan. I don't think > it's reasonable to proceed with a mass-bug filing on over 800 packages > as a first step, certainly not after such a short comment period. Sorry, I was overly eager in pushing this change. Thanks Steve for being the "tempering voice of reason". As for the package count, where did you find the additional 700+ packages? If I'm missing something, please let me know. Of matches in the search[0] Paul Wise linked to, many matches are from the same package, or more prominently (as with e.g., festival, gcc, geiser, id-utils, gcl, etc.), found in the upstream build system but never called at build time (one can deduce this from the fact that they don't build-depend on texi2html). As I stated in my initial email, there are at most 96 packages which would require some form of change, and these are the packages that either build-depend (94) or depend (2) on texi2html. I'll give it a week long comment period to see if people see any value in the MBF. If there is public support of the idea, then I'll go ahead with it, otherwise I will proceed as described at the end of this email. > Why are you not proposing to provide a texi2html wrapper from the > makeinfo package which translates the arguments as described on > <http://wiki.debian.org/Texi2htmlTransition>, and have makeinfo > Provide: texi2html? If by this, you mean remove the texi2html package from the archive after introducing the texi2html wrapper for makeinfo, and hope people would then transition after being warned by lintian, then it would fail to address Sébastien's concerns. If you mean something else, could please explain in greater detail what you meant, and how it would allow me to remove the texi2html package much more quickly from the archive than with my current plan? > This could be coupled with a lintian warning, or other soft means of > encouraging maintainers to do the transition. Given the above, I think the best approach, assuming there's no further support of the MBF over the next week, is: * start off with a lintian warning (lintian maintainers willing); * in 3, 4, or 6 months time, proceed with a mass bug filing against the remaining packages. Steve, does this seem reasonable to you? Respectfully yours, Ryan [0] http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=texi2html&skip=877 -- |_)|_/ Ryan Kavanagh | Debian Developer | \| \ http://ryanak.ca/ | GPG Key 4A11C97A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature