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

Re: Qt3 still broken (compat-headers), what to do?



On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:

> It seems then that our options are as follows.

> (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix.
> (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not release-critical.
> (iii) Resort to the technical committee.
> (iv) Keep the package split and release sarge with a broken Qt development 
> environment.

> Several months of experience suggest that (i) does not promise success.  
> Option (iii) seems rather heavy-handed to me.  And I am loathe to see us 
> reach (iv), cementing debian as the only distribution with a deliberately 
> broken Qt.

> I'd thus like to propose (ii) as the best solution.  I realise this is not an 
> RC bug; technically it's not debian's problem but the upstream Qt app's 
> problem.  Nevertheless, as it stands users are expected to divine the fact 
> that debian has deliberately broken Qt, that they should look in 
> README.Debian for a fix and that they are morally expected to tell upstream 
> that their code is wrong (after all, that's why they were forced through this 
> hassle in the first place).

Though I certainly agree that the current packages are gratuitously
broken, an NMU without the consent of the maintainer seems almost
certain to turn into a pissing contest.  Since (i) hasn't gotten
anywhere in four months, I would suggest that (iii) is the way to go
here:  this is precisely the sort of case I think the technical ctte. is
for.

> I therefore see this is as a "release-critical usability problem", which the 
> BTS and policy have no formal concept of.

I think that would be counted as 'grave'.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpl0ljQps6oX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: