Hi Atsuhito, and everyone else. On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:48:32AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > Hi Andreas and all, > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:14:28 +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > > the situation seems to be rather simple: > > Might be so but it looks to me that simple situation > is not understood correctly. I almost lost motivation > to argue this issue any more. But anyway; > > > On top of that upstream tells us that the > > version shipped in the package "lynx" is outdated and that only > > lynx-cur should be shipped: > > from the above, > > > So we should not have a package lynx-cur in sid, and the package lynx > > should be at version 2.8.7dev.8. > > it is natural or reasonable for me to concluse, we should > not have a package lynx in sid.
Actually, I'd suggest a very slightly different approach. > > > You'll need to arrange between you > > two how to get this done. > > lynx and lynx-cur are maintained for quite a long time > independently and I don't think I need any co-maintenace > with lynx-cur at present. Further, No objections there. > > On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:13:58 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > > > >> The lynx maintainer carries many core responsibilities inside Debian, so > > >> this appears to be the best solution. James, as lynx upstream Thomas > > >> Dickey > > >> agrees that the version from lynx-cur should replace the regular lynx and > > >> as you have a lot of work with FTP mastering, DAM and debian-admin, it > > >> appears to be a good solution to go along this path and co-maintain lynx > > >> along with lynx-cur maintainer Atsuhito KOHDA or pass maintenance to him > > >> entirely? > > > > > > I didn't get any response from anyone and now find that > > > a maintainer of lynx has changed to Zephaniah. > > > Hmm, how hard would it be to talk to Zephaniah and just cooperate on the > > package? > > I'd like to say, how hard would it be for James to drop > me a short note regarding this at that time. > > In fact, I've filed bug reports to lynx in the past but > never (really never!) got any rely from maintainers. My fault on the more recent ones, but James wasn't much better, so, meh. > > On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:50:19 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > E.g. you could either adopt lynx-cur as the standard lynx > > (since it's apparently stable enough), cherry-pick important > > patches into lynx or maintain lynx-cur only in experimental. > > Umm, saying it is stable enough and you advised to put it > in experimental? This sounds to me very self-contradicting. > > If you all think it is enough to update lynx to the > current version (and a maintainer keeps it in the latest > version), it's okay for me now (sigh). > > But if I'm allowed to advice, it will be better to use > the package name lynx-cur because it is the name of the > upstream source. > > Zephaniah, I'd like to hear your opinion if possible. > > If my mail sounds unpleasant, it is not my intention > but it is because my English ability prevents me from > expressing my feeling correctly enough in Englisy ;-) First, a note on the hijack of lynx some time back. Basicly, it was unmaintained and had not had an upload in ages, so it got one, then another. And then, er, I got a new job and have not had free time for over six months, somewhere in there I should have probably asked for another maintainer, or something of the like. As far as the current status goes, I have no objection to the package currently known as lynx going away, as long as a lynx package continues to exist and gets enough attention to not be a security risk. That said, whichever package name goes away, we need a transition package that depends on the other, at least for Lenny and maybe for Lenny+1. The argument for lynx-cur being the same as upstream makes sense, but so does 'apt-get install lynx' and 'the binary name is lynx'. I'd be happy to try and coordinate on this, but I don't have much more free time now then I have had for the past several months. So, my vote is for removal of the package currently known as lynx, with the current lynx-cur package taking it's place in one form or another. If you need this gpg signed, I can do so, but it's a slight pain to do with my current configuration. (My mail client is no longer running on a box I trust to hold my gpg key. I should find the time to fix that someday.) Zephaniah E. Hull. > > Regards, 2008-4-21(Mon) > > -- > Debian Developer - much more I18N of Debian > Atsuhito Kohda <kohda AT debian.org> > Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima > -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
