I have a sneaking suspicion that this may not actually be about what it says on the tin, but nonetheless, I'll reply to the request as submitted. I think my reply below also amounts to a commentary on what I suspect is the underlying issue behind this bug report in that it points out the substantial differences in this case.
Joey Hess <jo...@debian.org> writes: > I hereby submit to your attention the "coreutils ls options conflict". > I believe the issue is well-known, so I describe it only briefly below; > feel free to ask if you need more information. > ls is missing several key options, notably -y, -e, and -j. > Patches are available for some amount of time now: > http://bugs.debian.org/666198 adds -y > (necessary for compatability with old shar archives) This seems interesting but not horribly vital, and doesn't seem like the sort of place where Debian gains sufficient benefit from diverging from upstream to warrant patching it ourself. I'm sure that if upstream accepted this option, Debian would then pick it up. Have you contacted upstream about this option? I don't see any sign of that in the bug report. > http://bugs.debian.org/666244 adds -e > (entangled directory display option, quite nice) > http://bugs.debian.org/666684 adds -j > (suitable output format for twitter, cell phones, other 21st century media) These both pretty obviously should go to upstream and are not places where Debian should diverge from upstream (what if upstream uses that option for something else?). With both of these as well, I don't see any sign in the bug reports that these have gone to upstream. > The situation has escalated to the point that coreutils upstream, who > favors adding at least the crucial -y option as a hidden option > (appropriate given its compatability use case), is in disagreement with > the Debian maintainer. Could you point me at that discussion? Is it publicly archived somewhere? It's not in the bug report. (Bob Proulx is not the GNU coreutils maintainer.) > b) The risk of a negative impact on project morale if---due to the > reason above rather than a legitimate technical reason---we will miss > the Wheezy multi-ls-option release goal. I'm not familiar with this release goal. Could you point me at the previous discussion and general project agreement on this as a release goal? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y5qgz4ca....@windlord.stanford.edu
