[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: tech-ctte: more on merged-/usr

On Fri, 2022-07-22 at 09:31 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "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.

Very well put Sam, thank you. The governance issue comes first, the
CTTE needs to solve that, and only then it will be fair to ask for
volunteers do donate their time to work on the technical issue. The
other way around is just not going to happen.

Expecting volunteers to work in such a hostile environment and
describing their lack of willingness to do so as "it's too much hassle"
is very unfair.

Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: