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

Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion



On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:06:26AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Thursday 03 July 2003 21:36, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> > > 	First of all, I present my excuses for having started a new debate
> > > about debconf in debian-devel.
> > >
> > > 	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.
> >
> > It is not your responsibility to fix all of upstream's bugs, but it *is*
> > your responsibility to protect Debian users from upstream breakage as
> > much as possible.  This upstream change makes no sense from a usability
> > standpoint; this new stunnel package would be pretty useless to me, and
> > I wouldn't want to have it automatically installed on my systems if I
> > were using the previous, working version.  By the time a debconf note is
> > sent, it's too late.
> 
> What do you propose ?
> Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for compatibility 

Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and have
decided to gratuitously break compatibility, that sounds like a good idea.

> and do not include new version ?

Why wouldn't you include the new version as well?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Attachment: pgpWzGXUoGjUp.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: