Hi Patrick, On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:21:46PM -0400, Patrick Ouellette wrote: > As I mentioned in a message to the list, your "pretty bad shape" assessment is > not shared by everyone. One actual (non-critical) bug and a number of lintian > warnings are not what I call "pretty bad shape." Your definition may be > different. "in some cases DDOS the remote site if a user "ctrl-]+q" out of a telnet session" - this sounds quite serious to me. If this bug is not as serious as I think it sounds, could you please comment on the bug to let others know? My "seriousness rating" was based on the assessment from Brian N1URO and I'm guessing others reading the bug report would come to the same conclusion. > I haven't uploaded a new version since 1999 because for a while there was > another maintainer who expressed interest and had time. I have had a number > of disruptions from 2000 on in my work and home life - you know the kind, > job changes, children, etc. This is understandable, most of us are working on this in our spare time. This is however a team, and without communication, things do break down. > The bug I closed was nothing more than a request to please remove a package and > replace it with another that doesn't exist yet. There is no reason to clutter > the BTS with "replace a with b" - Debian is not set up that way. There is no > reason ax25-node can not exist in the archive when UROnode makes it into the > archive. If there is a technical reason they can not both be installed on a > system at the same time then "conflicts" can be used in the package control > files. As you have indicated that you will, when you have time, revisit the package and fix some of the outstanding issues, there is no longer a need to remove it from the archives. I'm happy for the two to coexist in the archives for as long as there is someone willing to maintain the package. > Yes, the plan that was discussed and decided without actually asking any of the > maintainers directly as far as I can tell. Yes, sending messages to the > debian-hams list is a good start but not everyone reads list mail every day. You should have been copied on the bug reports. I would prefer these issues to be discussed on the list or via the BTS and not in private. (Debian Social Contact Part 3). > There is no need to have ax25-node removed from the archive just so UROnode > can be added. When I find some time, yes I plan on working on the ham radio > software in Debian. Awesome. I look forward to a new package arriving for stretch. (: Some of the lintian errors/warnings refer to files living in /var/ax25. There was discussion about this within the Filesystem Hierachy Standard group, and we are looking to see if this is going to be included in version 3.0 of the standard or whether UROnode will need to be patched to use /var/lib/ax25. This will also be useful to the ax25-node package, so when there is some consensus within FHS as to what we should be doing, I can let you know. If you have previously been involved in this discussion, any information you have would be useful (bug reports, mailing list threads, etc.) so we can avoid going over old discussions again. 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:
pgpgdp_rmGRqR.pgp
Description: PGP signature