Bug#877024: Modemmanager probing of unknown Devices

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

Sam Hartman writes ("Bug#877024: Modemmanager probing of unknown Devices"):
> Hi.  In #877024, the TC was asked to rule on whether modemmanager should
> continue to probe USB devices that might not be modems.
> 
> There's been significant involvement from upstream leading to a new
> optional behavior that is less aggressive about probing unknown devices.
> 
> Would it help the maintainer for the TC to rule on this issue?
> 
> Do you have any input into the TC process you would like to give?

Thanks for asking these questions, Sam.

FAOD, currently, it seems that the Debian maintainers don't have time
to address this issue in Debian.  That is fine of course.  No-one is
obliged to do work, even if their name is in the Maintainer or
Uploaders field.

It looks like the conversation with upstream is going constructively
and will yield something that should be satisfactory to them, and to
me, at least.

I intend to carry on and try to help do the Debian part of this, with
NMUs as seem appropriate.  My earlier email suggesting an upload to
experimental is part of that.  If the modemmanager maintainers would
like to step in then that would be great of course.  Just let me know.

My main goal is that we should not let this bug go unfixed in buster.

So, addressing the need for a TC decision:

If there is no objection from the modemmanager maintainers to the
general direction which has been proposed and discussed here
(including the use of the `strict' probing policy), and no objection
to NMUs (on a relaxed timescale, but eventually targeting sid and
hence buster), then I don't see the need for a TC ruling.

If there are objections of detail then I think we should be able to
resolve them amicably.  I'm happy to take guidance.

It is mostly if there is an objection about the principle of the
approach that modemmanager should take, or an objection to NMUs, that
a TC decision might be needed.

Thanks,
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.