>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon <matthew@debian.org> writes:
Matthew> While it's understandable, I am saddened and a bit worried
Matthew> by the "it's too much hassle to fix dpkg's usr-merge
Matthew> support, let's not bother" message I seem to be getting
Matthew> from these threads.
I agree with you.
I think there are some bugs that are infrequent and are not worth
fixing.
This is not one of them.
I don't think a dpkg fix should block usr-merge, but I do think fixing
this issue and fixing the underlying governance issues are important.
I respectfully disagree with Helmut who is pushing for an acceptable
technical solution to be on the table before considering acting.
As others have pointed out, it's actually hard to come up with the
energy to improve and refine technical solutions.
Doing that in a climate where you face a political battle at the end is
not a realistic ask in our community at this time.
I think that the TC is one of the few bodies who could take leadership
on this issue.
You cannot design (or write) the patch.
You can do various things though.
You could confirm your willingness to solve this issue even over a dpkg
override.
(The TC's failure to act on the warning about unsupported configurations
leaves this in significant doubt and certainly left a bad taste in my
mouth at least).
You could review the existing patch and explain why it's not good
enough, or since reviews already exist, you could decide as a body which
parts of those reviews need to be addressed.
You could describe what review criteria or procedure you would use to
move forward.
While I appreciate that you are currently expressing your personal
views, I think the TC needs to express views as a body to move forward.
--Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature