[ dropping #614731 as, one way or another, it has been fixed: thanks! ] Sorry to rehearse this, but I'd like to explore all possible solutions,
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 04:32:56PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I simply have no interest in
> trying to deal with these problems further. I hope that whatever Debian
> decides to do lets me continue to maintain debhelper in Debian.
>
> > Would a clean re-implementation do? It seems silly to even think of
> > this as a way out when working code already exists, but it'd be better
> > than nothing.
>
> No, because my issue is not with the code but with Ubuntu continally
> forcing Debian to accede to their changes or risk horrible divergence.
> As we also saw with dpkg triggers, etc.
Given that NMU would put you in a bad position, and given that a
reimplementation is ruled out (luckily), how about co-maintenance?
Would you be willing to have a debhelper co-maintenance who would
essentially only keep an eye on debhelper parts that --- for political
or other reasons --- you don't want to touch? If you're available to
consider this option, I can try to help by looking for and proposing
candidates to you.
Thanks for considering,
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
