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
> which contradicts your statement.
No, it doesn't. You simply need a grammar book - I said your concerns „are
being addressed“, not „have already been addressed“.
I have a list of tasks to do on the package, which includes both your issues 1
and 1, so…
> I also do not like that you just drop
> my concerns 1. and 2. which are not dealt with - otherwise I would not
> have asked.
…I did not drop anything.
> > 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.
Your attitude of simply casting criticism in our direction is not helpful
either. I am currently trying to address all the issues Mike had when we asked
him to sponsor, which almost match yours 1:1.
> > > 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.
In that case, please let us finalise the work ;). I expect it to be done until
middle of the week.
> > > 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.
OK, thanks for the hint!
> I insist that the parallel development of a totally separate package is
> very unfortunate,
I agree. Looking at the changelog, you might find that I did not decide or do
that, but that I took over the new package and am now „cleaning up“.
> has caused duplicated work for me since it was not
Well, actually, I do not think this is entirely my fault. See, there was an
ITA, and that should have made you ask before doing any work. You knew that I
was working on it, so you could have asked for a status before doing separate
That said, it was *you* who decided to work on it, when in fact there was a
clear information that someone else is doing it right now.
> I realised that you basically ignored history, which is
> simply wrong.
Yes, it is, and I know it. It was not my decision, and after Mike raised his
concerns about it as well, I started rebasing the work on the old repository.
But it takes some time. Please let me finish it.
> I also have further concerns:
After fixing the issues Mike listed, I will happily come back to you to find
out if there is anything else that could be improved.
PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296
Dominik George · Mobil: +49-151-61623918
Teckids e.V. · FrOSCon e.V. · OpenRheinRuhr e.V.
Fellowship of the FSFE · Piratenpartei Deutschland
Opencaching Deutschland e.V. · Debian Contributor
LPIC-3 Linux Enterprise Professional (Security)