Quoting Milan Zamazal (p...@debian.org): > >>>>> "CP" == Christian Perrier <bubu...@debian.org> writes: > > CP> Oh, I certainly got warned by mail as there is a NEWS.Debian > CP> entry about this...and I ust apt-listchanges. "Unfortunately", > CP> that mail got trashed just like others. > > If you want to prevent such problems, configure apt-listchanges to > display information before installation and to ask for confirmation.
Just as Joss answered, apt-listchanges should not be an excuse to break existing setups. > > CP> I find such change inacceptable for release and I already > CP> imagine what wll happen to people who upgrade their mail servers > CP> from lenny to squeeze. > > This has nothing to do with Debian. It's an upstream decision. It's > definitely not popular and if you hate it so much, there are some > options what you can do: 1. complain upstream; 2. use other classifier > than crm114; 3. fork crm114 and develop and maintain your own derivate; > 4. write a .css file converter. The duty of the Debian maintainer is to smooth down impacts from upstream changes. One of the recognized qualities of Debian is such stability. So, we need to prepare our stable releases to avoid such breakages. Another is probably bringing feedback to upstream that such changes are very unwished by their users. I admit that, as I'm using unstable, I'm opened to such breakage and, even though that costed me a full day of worthy mail (which in turn could cost the various parts of Debian I work on several consequences because I may have missed important mails). That I can live with, in some way. But, at least, I expect my problems to benefit other users and particularly to avoid what I consider to be enhanced to enter testing and then break much more setups. > > CP> I'm really very seriously considering if I should keep on using > CP> crm114 if such changes happen and, at this very moment, I don't > CP> think this software verson is suitable for release in Debian. > > I can understand your rage but as I've explained above I can't see in > your report what I should fix in the Debian package. At the very minimum, a critical priority debconf note displayed when upgrading from a pre-20090423 version would be a good way to try your best preventing the problem to appear. Debconf notes are discouraged but I think that, here, we have a case where it would be better having it than nothing. I also came back on the NEWS.Debian entry and I think it is not alarming enough as it mentions "on some architectures" (which a careless reader would translate to "probably not on the most common ones") and it just mentions that CRM114 might not work but not that....mails piped through it will vanish. Maybe more people will come up with better suggestions. I really think that this bug should remain release critical so that it gets the deserved attention by both you and other developers (I bet that many use crm114 and many clever people can come up with good suggestions....this is also what RC bugs are about). Please accept some forms of apologies for showing up my "rage" in the bug report (I admit I was) but also please don't take the RC bug as a personal attack but more as a way to help you to provide the best possible package for that software. --
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
