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

Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 01:10:32AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> 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.

This issue would not attract so much attention if it was really too
late.  It's *not* too late -- sarge hasn't released yet, and every
reasonable effort should be made to get this right for sarge.  You still
have several options for moving this forward in a way that serves users'

- petition upstream to re-introduce support for commandline options
- issue a call for help to the development community asking for someone
  to implement this
- roll back to the 3.x version of stunnel by using an epoch, and commit
  to supporting this version even if upstream won't
- roll back to the 3.x version of stunnel by using an epoch, and upload
  stunnel 4 under a new package name, supporting stunnel only for RC

Warning a user that their system has been broken should be a last
resort, after all other options have been exhausted.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpMMV5muiSxX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: