I don't see the problem here. If there is a bug in an old version supplied with Debian, the bug report lands with Debian. Then Debian can solve the bug report by renewing upstream. Sot that bug report is not against the package, but against the packaging. If it persists in the newest version, the bug can be passed to upstream. Bug reports will not land at the developpers desk, or Debian has to take measures that they don't, e.g. by replacing e-mail addresses. No reasonable upstream developer will object to such an arrangement.
Groetjes Albert > Op 06-03-2021 12:58 schreef Geert Stappers <stapp...@debian.org>: > > > Preamble: > Do know that having own priorities > and working together IS possible. > > > On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 10:17:03AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 16:52 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > > > Finally the license statement is all about redistribution ... and > > > than upstream says: Do not redistribute. > > > > They appear to be fine with redistribution, > > OK > > > > just not with wide distribution by a popular Linux distribution, > > which has a stable release that is guaranteed to get out of date with > > documentation. > > Rendering that to FUD does allow me to add more FUD. > Less agressive: > The _possible_ burden on upstream > should NOT block our wish to package it. > > > > Possibly they could be convinced by having the package only available > > in Debian unstable or experimental and guaranteeing to keep it up to > > date with the latest available upstream version. > > Good relation with upstream is indeed preferred. > That relation will only exist when packaging is going on. > We are dealing with libre software. It implies that > upstream is libre to express "we don't want that it happens", > we are libre to do packaging. > Restricting ourselfs to only unstable feels wrong. > > > > On the other hand they probably also don't want to deal with bug > > reports about a build that they did not produce. > > Double you tee ef. > Please keep Fear Uncertainty and Doubt to yourself. > Now breaking that rule: > > Shady generated binaries are plain evil. > > > > (Back to more reasonable) > > It is not to us, Debian, to come with possible reasons > why upstream is "right" in blocking us. > > We, Debian, are fully aware that packaging comes > with responsebilities to quality. > > > > > Perhaps the right way is for Debian to distribute ExplosionAI software > > under different names with all documentation pointing at Debian to > > avoid upstream having to deal with bug reports from Debian users. > > > Same as was done with Iceweasel and Icedove. > > Future history will tell which lessons were learnt. > > > > Groeten > Geert Stappers > DD > -- > Silence is hard to parse
