❦ 17 octobre 2016 14:17 +0100, Punit Agrawal <punitagra...@gmail.com> :

>>> Someone proposed this in the bug report I linked above. The idea was
>>> turned down.
>> If there is someone motivated enough to take over the packaging of
>> global, we can submit the question to the technical committee. This is
>> an hostile move but the situation is unlikely to go forward.
>> Maybe Punit would like to resume its work on packaging a more recent
>> version (removing the CGI stuff to avoid the only known problem).
> I'd be up for upgrading the package and addressing any issues. As it
> is, I am a regular global user and once the package has been updated,
> it shouldn't take too much effort keeping it that way.

There are two possibilities:

 - Going the long way by asking the technical committee to hand over the
   maintainance of the package to you (I'll sponsor your uploads if you
   aren't DD). I can do it if you want.

 - Going the short way by putting your package as "global6" with a
   conflict/replace against the regular global. Such a package may be
   rejected by FTP-master (it should use alternatives) and we'll have to
   escalate to the technical committee for a decision. But it may also
   just work. I can sponsor your upload.

I think Ron won't like the first solution at all but maybe he'll be fine
with the second one (he says previously that he would not prefer such a
solution but it seems that it was not too hostile).

Which solution do you prefer?

For the second solution, are you okay to not package the CGI stuff as it
seems that's the main contention point.
Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do.
Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.
                -- Mark Twain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to