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

Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion


Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> 	First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> about debconf in debian-devel.

But then, the last one didn't favor your opinion.

> 	Secondly, to reply to every person who thinks I should have created a 
> more "user friendly" migration who did not break backwards compatibility. 
> My answer is that I have no time to implement command line support for 
> stunnel 4.x.

Yes. But you still have the options of:
- Publically asking if someone else has time and skill to do it.
- Putting off the update and/or packaging the interface incompatible stunnel
  under a new name.

> 	Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf, 
> I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the 
> stunnel package.
There is a difference between the social contract and the DFSG.

As a user of stunnel: Your warning will not help me as it does not keep stunnel
from breaking. *Not* installing a totally incompatible program where the stunnel
I wanted when I said "apt-get install stunnel" would.



Attachment: pgpCEcfAo7a1m.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: