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

Re: gtk-gnutella

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:34:18PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anand Kumria (wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au) [051124 04:40]:
> > <http://www.progsoc.org/~wildfire/debian/gtk-gnutella/gtk-gnutella-0.95to0.96b.diff>
> > 
> > It's 18MiB of unified diff goodness.
> > 
> > Far larger than 2.5MiB gtk-gnutella 0.96b the updated source release is.
> You don't really expect that we can accpet such massive changes in
> volatile? 

Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldn't have spent any time discussing it.

> Besides, BTW, the changelog is *really* broken (and also the
> general packaging - I probably should as QA member do a package review
> soon ...).

Great, I look forward to your bugreports.  But this is a side-issue
completely unrelated to whether or not gtk-gnutella should be in

> Basically, if you want to do a normal backport, speak with the
> backport.org-people. 

This isn't a backport.  Here is a hypothetical situation:
	- you provide a web browser which does http 0.9
	- all existing web servers and web browser in the meantime are
	  upgraded to only speak http/1.1
	- the web browser you provide now does http 1.1
	- the protocol (for both servers and clients) changes more
	  frequently than a Debian release

This is the situation I find myself in with gtk-gnutella.  Generally,
the program will release with a version of the client code that
interoperates with the rest of the network.

Over time, the rest of the network changes and decides that gtk-gnutella
(in Debian 3.1) is hostile -- in this case 0.95 is performing a DoS against 
other clients.

> Perhaps it is possible to send out a mail to the
> volatile-announce-list that gtk-gnutella doesn't really work anymore and
> people should look for backports (and also name one or more locations),
> but there is no way to accept the package as it is currently in
> volatile.

From your email the only reasons you've given are:
	- it's a massive change
	- you don't like the changelog

Is that a fair summary?


 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: