Re: Review of the gtk-gnutella patch
Hi Martin,
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 06:34:53PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi Anand,
>
> based on the patch you send in on 24th of November i tried to review
> your patch.
Thanks. It can't have been very easy.
> This 18MB patch seem to only consist of changes upstream
> made. This are _not_ only changes to a stable program that are
> necessary to keep it functional but a complete backport of a package.
Yes, upgrading to a new version is required in order to maintain the
functionality already delivered to our users.
> I would advice you to try to backport the changes of the network stack
> only and come back with that then.
Basically what you are saying is that you'd like me to divurge from
upstream and generate a special package that will never exist in either
stable nor in testing or unstable.
This special package will have a completely different network stack to
any gtk-gnutella in existence but will interoperate with the (evolving)
network.
As the kernel maintainers have indicated to you; generating a special
version of a package merely for volatile is pointless.
Basically it appears that the second item on volatile.debian.net ("
volatile is ... keep them functional") will cause you to reject most
packages.
It you are after 'minimal changes', what you are saying is that you
can't accept a newer gtk-gnutella *despite* the fact that
this program *no longer functions* for stable users.
> I agree with you that a change of the
> network stack is a valid candidate for volatile but this is much more
> then just the change of the network stack; eg. i don't understand why
> the changes of the UI are necessary to keep this program functional.
They aren't but since you aren't able to seperate (and neither am I for
that matter and nor are upstream) we either have to take them or decide
wholus-bolus that volatile isn't really necessary.
After I did my analysis of the existing packages in volatile it become
apparent to me that volatile:
- doesn't have a well-defined consituency
- without a well-defined consituency, by definition, can't meet
their needs effectively.
It is clear that different users expect different things; I expect
volatile to do the job that the stable group refuse to do -- ensure that
Debian stable contains functional software (i.e. I consider volatile a
hack around the fact that the stable group aren't doing their jobs).
As a user I would expect volatile goals to be:
- "do no harm"
- "be usable immediately"
- "provide updates to ensure Debian stable remains functional"
I'll post something to debian-user-announce explaining to our users how
they can get a functional version of gtk-gnutella. I was hoping to
point them to volatile.debian.net but, alas, I can not.
I think that until/unless you define yourself more throughly, volatile
won't get much traction.
Regards,
Anand
--
`When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"
Reply to: