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

Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion


On Thursday 03 July 2003 19:37, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > 	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.

Yes, this is a good solution. It is a little too late now but I will use this 
method for the next problem of this kind.

> > 	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.

I did not upload it.

Best Regards.
Julien LEMOINE / SpeedBlue

Reply to: