[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Slowdown problem of a Debian package

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 04:54:40PM +0900, Shigio YAMAGUCHI wrote:
> Hello all,
> Thank you for precious advices.
> Since I forgot to attach Cc: <me>, I'm reading the mail archive.
> > Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > The only way to override a maintainer's decision is through the
> > Technical Committee <http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte>.
> However, I won't make a technical dispute about this issue.
> Is the committee suitable for such case?
> I'm not opposed to any modification in Debian GLOBAL.I think
> that it should be done by Debian people under their freedom.
> Rather, I'm welcoming it, including the two commands: 'htmake',
> 'htconfig' which are part of Debian GLOBAL. I rejected only to
> take it to our version.
> My wish is just to see new package based on a recent GLOBAL.
> How about making a rule like follows?
> 	'A maintainer must orphan the package or explain the reason
> 	if new version is not released for two years or more in spite
> 	of users's demand.'
> That is, 'Accountability, or orphaning'.
> > Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
> > Any particular reason you didn't CC Ron on this thread? Usually when
> > talking about someone we do that.
> OK. I put CC to Ron, Taisuke and me on this mail.
> Would you please see the mail archive for the thread so far? >Ron, Taisuke

I really don't know why you keep trying to frame this in terms of
completely unrelated things and avoid discussing the actual problem
that I have repeatedly indicated to you, since the very first day
you asked for my opinion on making that change.

The current blocker is that you have introduced an interface which
requires root to run a generated script from an insecure location,
and you refuse to discuss this or do anything to remedy it.

So at this stage you continue to tie my hands.  This is not an
acceptable interface to introduce to a distro package.  So either
you need to fix that (which is the outcome I am hoping for), or
someone else will need to fork this project and do that instead.
And in the meantime the best thing we can do is stay with the
version we have which does not have that problem.

You cannot just jump up and down and insist that we ignore this
and upload it anyway.  But when you fix this problem, I will be
happy to prepare a new version for Debian.  I am losing count of
the number of times that I have tried to patiently explain this.

Please stop trying to sneak this change past other people and just
fix the actual problem.  That is all that needs to be done to
unblock this now.


Reply to: