Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 05:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> ❦ 22 octobre 2016 14:44 +1030, Ron <ron@debian.org> :
>>
[...]
>
> 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"?
>
> If you guessed "about a week before that email was sent ...", then
> yeah, you win the "I've seen this before too" booby prize.
>
> It's now something like 12 releases and more than 2 years behind
> being "in-sync with upstream", and hasn't been touched again at all
> since then ...
Seeing that I wasn't getting a clear response on what the problem
blocking the upgrade is and how to resolve it, I didn't spend any
effort on the repository.
As I don't use htags (or the related cgi-bin functionality) I was
looking for guidance on what is needed to fix/resolve the issue with
newer upstream releases. The reason I wanted to see the package
upgraded was because the existing version didn't work for me on the
linux kernel source tree (while upstream does). Forgive me for not
being either a debian or a source code tagging software expert.
If only you'd engaged with the commentators of #574947 and #816924, we
wouldn't be here trying to point fingers.
Reply to: