Hello, On Wed, 2024-01-17 at 16:24 +0100, Richard wrote: > > There is no version 2.0.x in Debian stable nor stable-backports yet, so > > unless you built the > > package yourself from the unstable sources or installed the Flatpak > > version, you created a > > "FrankenDebian". > > > > To be quoting myself: I am running testing. AKA Trixie. So no, there's no > FrankenDebian at work.
Ah, I misread that. That doesn't change any of what I said though. > > And, no, the wiki page regarding "FrankenDebian" is not contradicting > > itself because security > > updates are provided through debian-security. These updates are built to > > target Debian stable, > > so it's perfectly fine to install them without risking to break anything. > > > > It is not contradicting itself page-wide, but wiki-wide. This is the Wiki > entry for Debian Testing, > where it literally recommends to do what the "FrankenDebian" Wiki page > recommends not to do: > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianTesting I was talking about stable because the original bug was reported against the stable package. > It is a good idea to install security updates from unstable since they take > extra time to reach > testing and the security team only releases updates to unstable. You're free to do that, of course. However, relevant security updates are migrating to testing with a higher priority anyway. So, unless a maintainer forgot to set the proper urgency of a security update, there is no need to pull stuff from unstable. > > > Entitled? Well that's rich. The point of the whole bug reporting system > > > is exactly what we > > > are doing here. So yes, if you are unwilling to maintain the package, > > > which will always > > > include getting bug reports if things don't behave as intended, then > > > don't do it. > > > > Not really. If someone steps up to maintain something, it doesn't > > automatically mean they > > are responsible for supporting all possible configurations that exist > > within Debian which > > is what you are asking for. The package works perfectly fine on KDE which > > is what I am using > > myself. > > > > This is exactly what it's supposed to mean. Packages distributed by Debian > are obviously required > to not be broken when they hit stable. Otherwise an update wouldn't be > accepted to be sent to stable. The package is not broken. It works as intended by the upstream developers. It does not say anywhere that AusweisApp is supposed to work on a non-Qt system. > And since neither Debian with KDE nor Debian with Gnome is a separate > distribution, obviously a > package is supposed to work with both. Sorry, but that's just non-sense. If an upstream project does not support GNOME, it will not support GNOME on Debian either. Again, you are barking up the wrong tree here. > That's why all KDE packages will pull in all necessary dependencies required > to run in Gnome (or > any other DE offered by Debian) and vice versa. If any package would be > allowed in stable in a > theoretical future where it only supports Wayland and not X while not all > available DEs would > be supporting Wayland would be very questionable. And that's just another > version of this exact problem. It's simply not possible to support every possible use cases. You just have to accept that. The real software world is not perfect. > > The limitations around GNOME support are an upstream issue and not related > > to packaging which > > is what I am doing. Claiming that a particular issue that is not a serious > > bug must be fixed > > before the next release is something that I would call entitlement. If you > > have figured out > > how to fix this particular problem, you are free to send a patch to me or > > upstream. That's > > how it works with community-maintained software. > > It's obviously serious since it literally renders the software unusable for > some users. If you > have a different opinion, you should really re-read the severity levels' > definitions: > https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities > important: a bug which has a major effect on the usability of a package, > without rendering it > completely unusable to everyone. > This is literally what this is. And you're still missing the point that the issue you are seeing here is not a limitation of Debian but of the upstream software you are using. You are blaming me for something that I am not responsible for. I am neither the upstream developer of GNOME nor of Qt or the AusweisApp. I am the person who is maintaining AusweisApp in Debian. And I am shipping the software as it is provided by upstream. If upstream doesn't support usecase X, I am not the person to be blamed. > > Neither me nor the upstream maintainer are actually getting paid to provide > > this application > > on Linux or on Debian, so it's perfectly fine that we get to decide how we > > spend our free > > time. > > Nobody said otherwise. But literally with a bug this severe v2 can't and > shouldn't be accepted > into stable with Trixie. And if nobody fixes it, it's questionable how long > this package will be > accepted to stay in the repos at all. Again, the package is working as intended by upstream and the issue you are seeing is a known limitation. Software is never perfect and has always known issues. And instead of trying to educate people who do the actual work on how they are supposed to do the work, you could roll up your sleeves and try to help resolve this issue. Apparently, using AusweisApp on GNOME is very important to you. So I recommend you get start and help upstream, who has been CC'ed on this issue by me, fix the bug. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
