On 10/18/2016 05:29 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > On Tuesday 18 October 2016 08:27 PM, Lars Wirzenius wrote: >> This is so wrong, I would like to ask that this package not be allowed >> into Debian until it's fixed. > > I agree this could be marked RC and stopped from going to a stable > release. But do we stop accepting new packages in unstable because there > are serious bugs?
Well, maintainers should always try to make sure that newly uploaded packages don't immediately contain RC bugs. That doesn't always work and I don't think "contains RC bug" should necessarily mean the package can't go to unstable - but there's a limit, and just because it's unstable doesn't mean that there shouldn't be at least minimal standards. If the package so clearly fails to achieve its _only_ goal as in this case, I think it's a good idea to delay accepting it into the archive until it's fixed. That said, I don't want to discourage you, and to provide something more productive for the discussion, I'd like to point you to the following package: https://github.com/sindresorhus/pwuid This should help to fix the bug in question. [1] I'll not say more here, because none of this is really your fault. Instead I'd like to thank your for all the effort you put into packaging, and I really am completely in awe of your persistence. But I do think one of the things that makes Debian great is that there are some standards that we've come to expect from packaged software, and this specific package _currently_ just doesn't meet even the bare minimum standards for unstable - in my opinion. I hope there's going to be a fixed version of the package soon so it may enter Debian and you can proceed with the other dependencies. Regards, Christian [1] Funnily enough it's from the same author.
