Re: Bug#719624: Upgrading xrdp
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:59:32PM +0100, Dominik George wrote:
> most of your concerns are being addressed already (restoring history and such).
The current master branch of the repository you named starts with
xrdp (0.9.0~git20150318-1~alpha1) teckids; urgency=medium
* New upstream git snapshot
* Document legal issues at https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/issues/232
-- Thorsten Glaser <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:22:35 +0100
which contradicts your statement. I also do not like that you just drop
my concerns 1. and 2. which are not dealt with - otherwise I would not
> Please do not make it more difficult, an experienced DD (Mike Gabriel) is working with us.
I also do not like this "proof by authority" attitude. I would not
claim that I'm more right since I'm a longer experienced DD than Mike.
> > 3. Why do you plan
> > a) a non-official (random?) Git commit rather than a release?
> Because there is no current release. Upstream does not make releases anymore. The picked commit is not random. It is verified to work and includes a lot of stuff we negotiated with upstream (license issues, patches from Debian, etc.). It's the best we could get, and it works.
That's nice to know and I'd love to have something well tested. My only
interest is to have some reliably working xrdp quickly.
> > b) uploading to experimental rather than unstable?
> Because the package is a major change (e.g. switching from x11vnc to x11rdp by default).
That's not a good reason for choosing experimental per se. If there are
no depnedencies to adapt to undergo a transition a well tested package
can perfectly go to unstable. Experimental is close to not tested and
if you want some relevant number of users besides your closed circle you
should push to unstable soon. Otherwise you might get it in short before
the freeze which might incover problems to late.
I insist that the parallel development of a totally separate package is
very unfortunate, has caused duplicated work for me since it was not
announced. I realised that you basically ignored history, which is
I also notice that the packaging in alioth Git mentiones different
Vcs-* URLs which is broken but might be the reason that we are talking
possibly about different things. Please explain the differences between
your statements and the code in alioth or push the latest state to
I also have further concerns:
4. Please use DEP3 headers
5. Standards Version should be 3.9.7
6. Please close bugs in BTS if any are closed.