Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"):
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:52:29PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"):
> > > I think you missed the bit about "comprehending the problem and building
> > > consensus on solutions"
> > 
> > Somehow I missed the part where you helped contributors to "comprehend
> > the problem" and enabled them to "build consensus on solutions"
> > between March 2010 and mid-October 2016.
> 
> Yes, you did.  And you managed to miss it despite the fact I gave links
> to the public discussions in my first reply here and that other people
> in those have referred to the private discussions we had too.

I assume you are talking about:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#131
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#166

These are the only two references I could find in the whole of this
bug (#841294) from you to your own earlier messages.  In fact #574947
contains only FIVE responses from you over a period of SIX YEARS.
#816924, filed in March 2016, contains none.

It is true that 574947#131, in April 2014, contains an explanation of
an underlying technical difficulty.  But it also contains a strong
NAK, and this wording:

   I am very interested in seeing this all fixed, but someone is going to
   have to find a middle ground that both meets the minimum sensible
   expectations for distro Best Practice for this, and that Shigio is
   willing to accept.  Several of us have tried several times, but maybe
   you will have more luck with that.

It is not appropriate for the Debian maintainer to firmly NAK at the
same time as asking contributors to set direction.  574947#166 is,
like most of your messages, a very short mail saying "please fix it"
without any proposed technical approach.

I do not deny that there is an underlying technical difficulty.  But
in the absence of someone doing some substantial engineering to make
the questionable upstream feature packageable, there is a simple
choice:

Either we stay with the current, ancient version; or we disable the
troublesome feature (or ship it in a broken state, where it is
necessary to be root to use it).

The tradeoff you have chosen is to privilege hypothetical users of a
niche feature, in favour of a clamour of users wanting the benefits of
the new upstream version.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.