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' interests: - 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 fixes Warning a user that their system has been broken should be a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpMMV5muiSxX.pgp
Description: PGP signature