Re: this bug .. bugs me
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Joey Hess wrote:
> 10 Jun 2010 a bug was filed wanting wine 1.2 packaged in time for squeeze.
> 12 Aug 2010 packages of 1.2 were available .. but not in Debian.
> 6 Feb 2011 squeeze shipped with the same wine version that shipped in lenny.
> 7 Mar 2012 wine 1.4 was released as the new upstream stable release
> 25 May 2012 wine 1.2 was finally made available in unstable
> I've read over this entire bug, and while there are clearly some hard
> problems and a lot of good work shown here, I'm seeing a concerning
> trend throughout it.
> We seem to have a problem with being willing to trade off simple
> solutions that will greatly benefit users, for doing things "right",
> even when doing things "right" benefits users *less*.
> Examples of that seen in this bug include:
> * An idea that every old release of wine needs to be packaged in sequence,
> so it'll be available in snapshots, so users can pull down an old
> version as needed for maximal ability to find one that works. That's
> the theory, the actual end result is that users had no modern
> wine version at all to use, for many years.
> This is a simple tradeoff of benefits to sets of users,
> and the set of users who know how to use snapshot.debian.org, need
> a two year old version of wine there, and can find the right version is
> clearly much smaller than the set of users who would like the latest
> wine to see if it runs some program.
> * Wanting to support multiarch coinstallability, plus wine and
> wine-unstable coinstallability. Nice goal, but again it prioritises
> some small set of users who need 2 or even 4 versions of wine
> coinstalled over the larger set of users who just want the newest wine
> * Not using existing Ubuntu packages of wine despite them being
> available for a long time at newer versions.
> * People doing work allowing themselves to be blocked for a long time on
> some minor procedural point, like whether they have commit access to a
> particular git repository, or are not being added as a member of some
> particular team, or whether infrequent and apologetic posts by a package
> maintainer are enough to keep them from being considered MIA.
> This bug is a textbook example of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
> It's disconcerting that we, or our users, are willing to put up with this.
Not sure what to say other than when I became a DD and gained the
power to NMU, I started fixing this. Before that, Ove's contributor
rejections blocked myself and many other non-DDs from effectively
Anyway, we've had recent threads on the continuing issues with strong
package maintenance, and from what I can tell, there is no clear
direction. The solution I'm pursuing is a liberal application of
NMUs, and it seems to be working (albeit a bit slowly). Do you have
ideas on other more effective solutions?