On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> wrote:
>  ❦ 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?

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

Reply via email to