On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 06:54:17 +1030 Ron wrote:
> You then had the gall to angrily insist that while you thought he might
> be a better maintainer than me, it was still my responsibility to do the
> work to fix all the obvious things that others had missed in their fork
> (which he hadn't contribute
On 2016-12-01 22:56 +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Wookey writes:
> > On 2016-11-30 16:56 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> >> > And this last bit (integration with system web server) is the
> >> > functionality that had security concerns raised by Ron [etc.]
> >>
> >> So, to be clear, it is this fun
Wookey writes:
> On 2016-11-30 16:56 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> On to some questions it raises for me:
>>
>> > Optionally, "htags" can generate a dynamic index (which reduces disk
>> > space usage) but requires an http server setup to be able to serve the
>> > pages. In this scenario, you wi
I just noticed I missed out responding to one of your queries in my reply.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>> Punit Agrawal writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to
>&g
On 2016-11-30 16:56 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> On to some questions it raises for me:
>
> > Optionally, "htags" can generate a dynamic index (which reduces disk
> > space usage) but requires an http server setup to be able to serve the
> > pages. In this scenario, you will also need to be able t
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Ian Jackson
wrote:
> Punit Agrawal writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package
> a new upstream version"):
>> In offline discussions with Wookey, we came to the realisation that
>> reading the various bug
Punit Agrawal writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a
new upstream version"):
> In offline discussions with Wookey, we came to the realisation that
> reading the various bug reports (including this one) it is not very
> clear how global
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> The TC had an IRC meeting yesterday [0], and I (was) volunteered to wrap up
> the different outcome possibilities, which would help forming our opinions.
> Not all these options are exclusive, or would need an actual TC decision.
>
> H
Wookey writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new
upstream version"):
> OK, as Punit and I have prepared a current 6.5.5 which would be a
> candidate for a 'modern' release, and I think it's useful to have such
> a versio
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to
package a new upstream version"):
> E) the 'global' package is handed to other maintainer(s)
>
> This would imply:
>
> - overruling the 'global' mainta
On 2016-11-23 18:19 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> The TC had an IRC meeting yesterday [0], and I (was) volunteered to wrap up
> the different outcome possibilities, which would help forming our opinions.
> Not all these options are exclusive, or would need an actual TC decision.
>
> Here w
The TC had an IRC meeting yesterday [0], and I (was) volunteered to wrap up
the different outcome possibilities, which would help forming our opinions.
Not all these options are exclusive, or would need an actual TC decision.
Here we go:
A) 'global' stays maintained as it currently is.
This wou
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:16:34 +1030 Ron wrote:
> If we run with your proposal, what are you actually suggesting we tell
> the people who'd be upset by the loss of htags without notice in Stretch?
> Because I don't really see how you've addressed that here.
>
> AFAICS, there's just either an implic
On 2016-11-16 06:02 +1030, Ron wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:55:06PM +, Wookey wrote:
> > On 2016-10-25 07:29 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, it worked fine in a test run I just did (on linux-4.9 rc 1), and
> > > last time I used it, it also worked fine with the emacs int
❦ 15 novembre 2016 21:32 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen :
> Vincent, would this be acceptable to you?
My understanding of Ron's mail is the following: do nothing now and wait
for Stretch release to see what version could be packaged. I am not
thrilled by this option (but I rank it above the "do nothing
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:32:38 +0100 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I think this sounds quite reasonable, all in all. It gets us a newer
> version (albeit not for stretch, but I see the points about changing
> that so close to the freeze), it gives users some warning about htags
> going away (and if that
Hi,
apologies for the delay in responding here.
]] Ron
[…]
> I'd really like to keep this to just one package, for the reasons
> already given (though there's surely more if anyone still needs
> even more).
This sounds pretty reasonable to me.
> I'd really like to avoid "surprising" anyone u
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:55:06PM +, Wookey wrote:
> On 2016-10-25 07:29 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, it worked fine in a test run I just did (on linux-4.9 rc 1), and
> > last time I used it, it also worked fine with the emacs integration, so
> > I don't recognise the crying fr
On 2016-10-25 07:29 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Wei Liu
>
> > Gtags in Debian doesn't work with modern code base. Last time I tried
> > (several
> > years ago), it segfault'ed while trying to index Linux kernel.
>
> FWIW, it worked fine in a test run I just did (on linux-4.9 rc 1), and
>
Could you both please stop? Sniping at eachother is not helping us
resolve the technical and social issues here.
--
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
T
Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new
upstream version"):
> It's ok, we get it. You've got an axe to grind, and boy are the sparks
> flying off it thick and hot!
My axe is the same one I often have in Technical Comm
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:56:40PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to
> package a new upstream version"):
> > I made this timeline to show how Ron thinks it is appropriate to deal
> > with
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:33:32 +1030 Ron wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:09:21PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> > It seems you're only interested in impartial and non-partisan voices
> > when they happen to back your position. I am impartial and non-partisan,
> > and formed my opinion by reading t
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package
a new upstream version"):
> I made this timeline to show how Ron thinks it is appropriate to deal
> with this package.
>
> Messages to #574947 and #816924, combined
> Each
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package
a new upstream version"):
> These are the only two references I could find in the whole of this
> bug (#841294) from you to your own earlier messages. In fact #574947
> contains only F
Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new
upstream version"):
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:52:29PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new
> > up
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:52:29PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new
> upstream version"):
> > I think you missed the bit about "comprehending the problem and building
> > consensus o
Ron writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new
upstream version"):
> I think you missed the bit about "comprehending the problem and building
> consensus on solutions"
Somehow I missed the part where you helped contributors to "
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:09:21PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Nov 07 2016, Ron wrote:
>
> > I've taken the time to repeat this all again now, because regardless
> > of how it got here, I actually have some faith in the new face of the
> > TC as a forum for building 'project wide' consensus
On Nov 07 2016, Ron wrote:
>> In my opinion, the fact that you had no time for this issue for multiple
>> years, but are now able to send a large number of long emails about it
>> to the ctte does not speak in your favor.
>
> I'm sorry, remind me again about where and what you have ever tried
> to
❦ 7 novembre 2016 16:45 +1030, Ron :
> I've always given time to anyone who took the time to understand and
> showed an interest and willingness to try something new to improve
> this. And it's clear that the person who gave the most recent (and
> best) feedback to the original bug found it eas
On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 05:09:56PM -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On Nov 06 2016, Ron wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:20:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >> Ron writes:
> >> >
> >> > I can try to clarify that if there's a question in your mind that
> >> > you don't think I touched on there.
On Nov 06 2016, Ron wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:20:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
>> Ron writes:
>> >
>> > I can try to clarify that if there's a question in your mind that
>> > you don't think I touched on there.
>>
>> The question that remains is what you actually intend to do.
>
> No
Note: this is written as an outsider who doesn't have any direct stake
in the issue.
On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 05:00:12 +1030 Ron wrote:
> > And I think the latter is basically what the "just ship multiple
> versions and hope the future gets clearer" option boils down to.
> All it really does is take th
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 09:20:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ron writes:
> >
> > I can try to clarify that if there's a question in your mind that
> > you don't think I touched on there.
>
> The question that remains is what you actually intend to do.
Nod. So far here, I've mostly tried to s
Ron writes:
> Hi Marga,
>
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Margarita Manterola wrote:
>> > Philip Hands writes:
>> > It seems like you are tempted to drop htags anyway now, so calling the
>> > version 6 package 'global' and adding the global5 package to give people
>> > an escape rout
Hi Marga,
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> > Philip Hands writes:
> > It seems like you are tempted to drop htags anyway now, so calling the
> > version 6 package 'global' and adding the global5 package to give people
> > an escape route seems like the right
> Philip Hands writes:
> It seems like you are tempted to drop htags anyway now, so calling the
> version 6 package 'global' and adding the global5 package to give people
> an escape route seems like the right thing to do.
>
> That also makes it much easier to detect when people cling to version
On 2016-10-25 07:33 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Ian Jackson
>
> > * Specifically, failed to give clear and constructive directions to
> >those willing to do the work;
>
> I disagree with those characterisations. He's asked for clarifications
> on what is broken without anything resem
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:03:40AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Ron writes:
>
> ...
> > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like
> > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who
> > might be upset by that - and we don't have a clear idea of exactly
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:29 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Wei Liu
>
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:47:27 +1030 Ron wrote:
>> [...]
>> > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like
>> > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who
>> > might be upset by t
Philip Hands writes:
...
> How viable is it to have two conflicting packages:
>
> global5: continuing as you have it now
>(perhaps with patches to make it work for recent use cases)
>
> global6: (with htags support removed)
Ah, I see -- I had somehow got the impression that the f
Ron writes:
...
> That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like
> a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who
> might be upset by that - and we don't have a clear idea of exactly
> what we'd really gain elsewhere from that tradeoff, since most of
> the
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Ron wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 05:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> ❦ 22 octobre 2016 14:44 +1030, Ron :
>>
[...]
>
> Without repeating what I already said above about this option, we do
> already have some evidence about how well it might be implem
❦ 25 octobre 2016 07:33 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen :
>> * Specifically, failed to give clear and constructive directions to
>>those willing to do the work;
>
> I disagree with those characterisations. He's asked for clarifications
> on what is broken without anything resembling an adequate repl
]] Ian Jackson
> So in summary, the maintainer has:
>
> * Not packaged the new upstream version due to concerns about a
>feature which is not present in the current Debian version and
>which could therefore be removed from a new-upstream-version upload
>without causing a regression
]] Wei Liu
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:47:27 +1030 Ron wrote:
> [...]
> > That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like
> > a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who
> > might be upset by that - and we don't have a clear idea of exactly
> > what we'd re
So in summary, the maintainer has:
* Not packaged the new upstream version due to concerns about a
feature which is not present in the current Debian version and
which could therefore be removed from a new-upstream-version upload
without causing a regression in Debian;
* Explicitly and
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:47:27 +1030 Ron wrote:
[...]
> That's basically why "just nuke htags now" is starting to look like
> a viable, and even sensible, option. But it's tricky to know who
> might be upset by that - and we don't have a clear idea of exactly
> what we'd really gain elsewhere from
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:48:10PM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > Maybe the question we should ask is less «who/how many people use
> > htags?» and more «what value does htags provide?». I'm no big fan of
> > arbitrarily breaking people's workflows, wh
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 24 octobre 2016 12:48 -0500, Don Armstrong :
>
> > [Also, I'd like to note that currently Punit has not participated in
> > the CTTE bug, and the last comment on #574947 was in 2014, so I'm not
> > convinced that we have an alternative maintainer ev
❦ 24 octobre 2016 12:48 -0500, Don Armstrong :
> [Also, I'd like to note that currently Punit has not participated in
> the CTTE bug, and the last comment on #574947 was in 2014, so I'm not
> convinced that we have an alternative maintainer even if we were to
> decide to change ownership of this
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Maybe the question we should ask is less «who/how many people use
> htags?» and more «what value does htags provide?». I'm no big fan of
> arbitrarily breaking people's workflows, which we might be the result
> if we remove htags.
It sure looks like up
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 03:11:15PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to
> package a new upstream version"):
> > I'm leaning towards dropping htags, since that seems to have problems
> > secu
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package
a new upstream version"):
> [Ron:]
> > I'm appalled at the status quo. My concern is that we don't make
> > that even worse with uninformed decisions. In the absence of g
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 08:48:53PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Ron
>
> > I'm appalled at the status quo. My concern is that we don't make
> > that even worse with uninformed decisions. In the absence of good
> > information, sometimes the best thing to do is be patient until
> > more of
]] Ron
> I'm appalled at the status quo. My concern is that we don't make
> that even worse with uninformed decisions. In the absence of good
> information, sometimes the best thing to do is be patient until
> more of it arrives.
I agree with this. On the other hand, waiting forever isn't pro
❦ 23 octobre 2016 19:53 +1030, Ron :
>> So, nothing will move on your side until I bring some proof that "nobody
>> is interested in htags". Well, I won't bring any such proof either.
>
> That was a claim _you_ made in bringing this to the TC. Are you really
> saying now that you have no basis
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 09:55:43AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 23 octobre 2016 17:19 +1030, Ron :
> > If you're saying yes to the question I put above, then what I'm asking
> > is: what real evidence can you show to back up your assertion that
> > "nobody cares about htags", and/or what comp
❦ 23 octobre 2016 17:19 +1030, Ron :
>> > So are you asking if we should package a version that has htags
>> > removed instead of what we currently have? Because that's the
>> > essential implication of "remove the offending CGI bit".
>>
>> Yes. I have asked first here:
>>
>> https://bugs.de
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 05:41:54PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 22 octobre 2016 14:44 +1030, Ron :
>
> > It seems fair to assume that you aren't seriously asking them to
> > endorse the idea of chmod 777 as an acceptable interface for
> > distro software - but that's what "force the new vers
❦ 22 octobre 2016 14:44 +1030, Ron :
> It seems fair to assume that you aren't seriously asking them to
> endorse the idea of chmod 777 as an acceptable interface for
> distro software - but that's what "force the new version into
> the distro one way or another" actually means.
Yes, I am not.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:12:51 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> Indeed. The current situation is that the existing version is so old
> that it doesn't work properly with modern code any more, but the
> maintainer has refused to do any of:
> 1) upload a new package,
I'm not "refusing to upload a new package",
On 2016-10-19 14:26 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Vincent Bernat writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to
> package a new upstream version"):
> > Ron Lee is the current maintainer and disagrees on some issues with
> > upstream and therefore
Vincent Bernat writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package
a new upstream version"):
> Ron Lee is the current maintainer and disagrees on some issues with
> upstream and therefore don't want to update to a more recent
> version. See bug #5749
Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello,
GNU Global is currently "freezed" in Debian at version 5.7.1 which is
8+ years old. Many improvements and bugs were fixed in more recent
versions. Also, many frontends now expect a newer versions of global
66 matches
Mail list logo