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 <r...@debian.org> 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 the pressure off of everyone but me > to have any interest at all in actually trying to resolve the > genuinely Hard part of this. And it does that by making an even I don't think the others have any obligation to try to resolve any technical issues, and it is 100% reasonable of them to insist that Debian just ship a new upstream version (as long as the packaging is not otherwise unacceptably bad; but simply disabling any functionality that is not secure or otherwise OK upstream is a valid answer). Based on what I've seen in this thread, I think I can say you're clearly in the wrong. And that does not require considering any of the technical issues with the software. The software now shipped in Debian as "global" is simply too outdated compared to upstream. That you have technical objections to something in the newer versions could be a reason for you to create a new fork. But you have not properly done that, and abusing your Debian packager position to indefinitely hold back the package is not an appropriate answer to any technical issues, regardless of the validity of the technical objections. To properly create a fork, you'd need to either pick a new name for your fork, or contest whose version has the right to the name "GLOBAL". You have obviously not chosen a new name. You don't seem to be claiming to be the overall upstream maintainer of GLOBAL either, and claiming that would be totally inappropriate if you're only shipping your version in Debian. As such, you have no business shipping your version under the "global" package name. Either ship the upstream version - even if flawed and causing problems for some users - or use another package name.
