❦ 23 octobre 2016 17:19 +1030, Ron <ron@debian.org> : >> > So are you asking if we should package a version that has htags >> > removed instead of what we currently have? Because that's the >> > essential implication of "remove the offending CGI bit". >> >> Yes. I have asked first here: >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#161 >> >> You politely said that you would rather not take this solution. > > Did you mean to point to some other message? Because what you > asked there was actually: > > will you agree if someone packaged global6 without the CGI stuff > and use of the alternative system to let people choose between > global and global6 for gtags and other commands? > > Which is not at all the same as the question I asked above. > I think we could pretty quickly get a consensus that creating a > confusing mess with multiple versions and incompatible alternatives > is not what the alternatives system was designed for, and about the > worst possible option for how to ship something like global in Debian. OK, so no alternative packaging. > If you're saying yes to the question I put above, then what I'm asking > is: what real evidence can you show to back up your assertion that > "nobody cares about htags", and/or what compelling case can you make > that breaking things for anyone who does use it is a lesser evil than > the problem(s) you are experiencing, and actually a necessary evil to > fix your problem. I don't have any evidence. > If ggtags is broken, that's a bug in ggtags. ggtags relies on contemporary versions of its dependencies. Not something that most people will call a bug. But I don't have evidence on this either. People in the bug report don't complain just to have a new shiny number in "global --version". They have actual problems with the version currently in Debian. > Without repeating what I already said above about this option, we do > already have some evidence about how well it might be implemented in > practice ... > > In https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#176 > Punit (who you were proposing to take this over if the TC agreed with > you about that being the best option) said: > > While there doesn't seem to be any motivation to resolve the issues > blocking the package upgrade, I'd like to point you to a package > repository containing an upgrade to recent upstream release (6.2.12) - > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/global.git. > > The package is also updated to follow more recent packaging standards. > > It would be ideal if the official package got upgraded (or maybe > replaced by another package), but in the meanwhile I'd like to keep > the above repo in-sync with upstream releases. Please let me know if > you face any issues using that version. > > > Anyone want to take a bet on guessing the last time that repo was > "in-sync with upstream releases"? [...] I don't think this is reasonable to expect someone to maintain a non-official repository of the package while still being ignored by the official maintainer. See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=574947#101 I asked Punit to resume his work only a few days ago. I can't expect him to have already do the work: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=816924#30 > So if that's what we're going to do, I'd like to see some sort of > evidence put on the record here by the people asserting "nobody uses > it" to show those assertions do have some real basis in fact that's > stronger than a thinly veiled "I don't use it". And some stronger > explanation for why we have no other practical choice to do that than > "I couldn't be bothered investigating bugs in other code that effect > me, it's easier to just break it for you instead". > > If we have that, and a good consensus on it, and nobody has any better > options we could opt for instead - then at least we have something to > point at as being a properly considered consensus decision, which I > don't have to worry about being dragged back here to defend because > somebody else doesn't like what problems your preferred option inflicts > upon them, if I arbitrarily pick you over them. > > > Until we can do that, all I can really do is what I've already been > doing, namely stick with the current status quo, and see what we can > do to address any specific individual problems that people care enough > about to report in some actually actionable way. So, nothing will move on your side until I bring some proof that "nobody is interested in htags". Well, I won't bring any such proof either. Your mail should show the TC you don't intend on bringing any solution other than the status quo. -- The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, Are of imagination all compact... -- Wm. Shakespeare, "A Midsummer Night's Dream"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature