I won't comment on the silliness of the severity tennis played by the maintainer. The bug is critical even according to the release team.
Anyway, I disagree with the way 0.73 fixes the bug: it replicates the functionality provided by mdadm >=2.5-1 into a hack within the package. Granted, the hack is only used when mdadm >=2.5-1 is not installed, but still, it's a hack. The maintainer failed to give any reasons why his solution is preferred over a simple conflict against mdadm <<2.5-1, which is what I proposed even before we started the transition. I do not see why we should have a hack ensuring that everything works when mdadm <<2.5-1 is installed, instead of just ensuring that a newer mdadm should be installed by means of a conflict. Then again, a conflict could possibly remove the mdadm package altogether, which would be equally bad. There seems to be no way to tell Debian to conflict with versions prior to a specific package's specific version, but to ensure an upgrade as a resolution conflict, not the package's removal. Please do not sponsor the package in its current state without ensuring that the maintainer knows what he's doing and has publicly documented his reasons for his choice. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
