On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Vincent Bernat <[email protected]> wrote: > ❦ 17 octobre 2016 14:17 +0100, Punit Agrawal <[email protected]> : > >>>> 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?
If we are going to end up going to the technical committee either ways, I'd rather that Ron gets a chance to change things instead of us working around him by uploading another package. Considering that users have been waiting for a long time, a bit more time isn't going to hurt. Having said that, I am not that familiar with debian processes so can't say which is the better option. > > For the second solution, are you okay to not package the CGI stuff as it > seems that's the main contention point. IIRC, that is what I had done in the version upgrades I'd proposed. So no issues from me with dropping the CGI functionality. > -- > Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. > Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. > -- Mark Twain
