Hi Hans, On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:11:44PM -0700, Hans-Peter Friedhelm Oeste wrote: > While I agree that you can make decisions as to the direction of > Debian, I believe that you're pushing your decisions into the region of > fanatical/puritanical obsession. That's all well and good as there's > always choice in supporting this distribution or not. I'm sorry you feel this way. The decisions taking place are being considered in the context of the Debian Social Contact. JNOS *cannot* be included in Debian in its current state. If our users would find it useful, it would be possible to build a jnos-installer package that would download and perform an installation of JNOS. This topic is open for discussion, and input is welcome from anyone. I must say that so far however, most input I've recieved has not been constructive and there is not much I can do to act on it. > BUT in reading your last paragraph where you suggest that because > because ax25-node is being dropped by you, Debian, it is now alright > for nodejs to hijack/appropiate this name, 'node' is entirely past > anything I can tolerate. It seems to me that you are speaking far to > sweepingly for the Linux Community in general and you're actually > looking to reintroduce the 'bug' that originally existed. Debian it's > self required, nay forced the name change originally even though node > had been used by ax25 far longer than the js folks. Dropping ax25-node is being considered for the following reasons: * There is currently no active maintainer for ax25-node * The last update to this package by the team was in 2009 and that was the maintainer resigning. * The last actual maintainence update was in 2008. * There is an important bug on this package (#777013) * There is a normal bug on this package (#399464) * There are 2 lintian errors on this package, along with 20 warnings * Build log checks report 1 error and 1 warning about this package * The updates made to comply with the tech-ctte decision (#614907) had to be made by NMU * This package is no longer maintained upstream * A bug was filed indicating this package would be removed (#778843) and no objections have been put forward on this bug * The package depends on update-inetd which currently has no maintainer (#719794) These bugs have been filed in our public bug tracker and anyone is welcome to comment on them. If the above problems can be fixed, then there is no longer any need to drop the package. Given it has no upstream maintainer at this time however, it is likely it will have to be removed futher down the line anyway due to incompatible changes in other parts of the system. Discussion regarding the release of the "node" name would take place on debian-devel before being implemented. Consensus would have to be reached before any such change could happen. Nothing is decided yet and if there is anything being overlooked, constructive input on the debian-hams list or on bug reports is the best way to highlight the problems. Thanks, Iain. -- e: irl@fsfe.org w: iain.learmonth.me x: irl@jabber.fsfe.org t: EPVPN 2105 c: 2M0STB g: IO87we p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49
Attachment:
pgpyNsnYldjGv.pgp
Description: PGP signature