Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian
Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:
> We can certainly attempt to do so; I don't think anyone in this thread
> is contemplanting knowingly causing audacious's upstream harm.
I agree, in fact, I don't think Debian would handle such a migration
in the way that Gentoo handled it. I'm just bringing forward advice
that I have observed from previous migrations that have resulted in
problems for us upstream and requesting that people don't move in the
direction that they did.
So far, things seem to be OK.
> > So then you are saying we should reject all bugs against audacious
> > as provided by debian which do not refer to a debian bugtracker URL
> > anyway? I'll certainly be happy to implement that.
> It's entirely your decision as to what you do with your bug reports,
> but reporting bugs against the bts is what Debian users are encouraged
> to do, especially when they aren't certain whether the bug is an
> upstream problem or not.
I'll discuss that with Adam and see what he thinks would be a good idea
to do then. Since Debian users are encouraged to use sendbug(1), I have
not received many support cases from Debian users.
In fact, you could say that I have enjoyed the lack of support cases from
Debian users in general. This is probably because Audacious in Debian
does not have a gazillion insane patches on top of it, like some of the
other binary packages do.
> Considering the fact that he would be involved in any transition, he's
> perfectly capable of deciding and/or recommending veribiage with which
> he is satisfied.
Indeed, and I think he can come up with a way to handle such a
migration. I was simply pointing out potential problems and how they
could be avoided.