Re: DEX ancient-patches: where the rubber meets the road
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:18:07AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In the specific case you mention (dhcp, #308832), the maintainer also
> replied about the merits of the patch, saying that he has a policy to
> stay close to upstream, whereas the proposed patch will make him drift
> from that policy. You clearly have a different view and believe that the
> benefits of applying that patch in terms of security justify drifting
> from maintainer policy. If anyone, DEX or not, feels strongly about the
> position you're advocating, the proper solution would be to activate the
> CTTE. An usual middle ground could be raising the topic on -devel, to
> gather opinions from others.
Oh, I forgot to state another obvious in-between way of proceeding before
escalating even only to -devel: you might want to argue with the maintainer,
replying to the bug log, why in this specific case you believe it would be
worth to drift from the default policy of staying close to upstream for
security reasons.
BTW, I've bounced to the bug log the maintainer reply, which was only on this
list.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Reply to: