On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 01:46:11AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 2023-08-18 at 08:07:44 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > FWIW, I have been maintaining vagrant in Debian for several years. > > BTW, thank you for having done that, it's been much appreciated! > > > TL;DR: I will not be maintaining vagrant anymore. > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 02:56:28PM +0900, Kentaro HAYASHI wrote: > > > * What was the outcome of this action? > > > > Plan A. > […] > > > > Plan B. > […] > > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 09:37:54AM +0000, Gwili.Stifter@EasyMailer.live wrote: > > > Plan C. > […] > > There's perhaps a: > > Plan D. > > - Package Vagrunt (https://github.com/vaagrunt/vagrunt) a fork of > Vagrant, that is stated should remain free software. And as it does > not have a CLA, if it gets several contributions it will be > increasingly hard to relicense. > - Transition from vagrant to vagrunt via a transitional package. > > (We use Vagrant at work, and I'm not planning on relying on a non-free > tool, so a fork would do, otherwise I'd have to look into alternatives > for us to switch to.) I have seen this a couple of days ago. So far vagrunt is vaporware. The GitHub user which created has -- as far as I looked, i.e. on GitHub itself -- 0 contributions to Ruby projects. I'm also not confident that it will be easy to keep up with e.g. new VirtualBox versions without effectively infringing on HashiCorp copyrights. I will love to be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath here.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature