On 12.12.24 01:30, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
that some people (not you, those not showing an interest in stability) prioritizing backports over the very stuff that makes it possible to backport: something that is stable in the first place, as a foundation e.g. for such simpler and shorter-lived efforts of backporting.
I can only assume that you mean me by "some people".I acknowledge that this is one way of looking at it, though I contest that I'm very much "interested in stability".
However. I'm not using Debian because I like intellectually-pure packaging. That's secondary to actually getting some work done. If the current packaging gets in the way of that, then my first step *has to* be to side-step some of it, for the simple reason that I'm not getting paid when my company's phone system stays broken.
The third step is to do this in such a way that the result isn't just a one-shot effort. The second step? figure out a way to spend the least possible effort on achieving step three.
Speaking of long-term stability: My core assumption is that the number of people who can do a quick "git pull upstream; fix conflicts if any; test; be happy; git debpush" (plus "git rebase" and fake-merging when there's a new Upstream release; in other words, the "git debpush" workflow) is strictly greater than the number of people who can and/or want to deal with pristine-tar and quilt. The nonexistence of a stable Asterisk .deb is not the only symptom of that. IMHO.
Thus, *my* view of a foundation for "stable and sustainable work" happens to be an upstream git tree with a minimum amount of changes to build DFSG-clean Debian binaries. If some additional work is required to wrangle the result into the shape that the current(!) Debian build infrastructure insists on (Asterisk does depend on a number of vendorized libraries and some other special sauce (DAHDI …)), fine, let's talk about how to do that.
-- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
