On Monday, March 7, 2016 5:43:20 PM AMT Sébastien Villemot wrote: > Dear David, > > First, let me thank you for the work that you put into packaging > owncloud for Debian, it is really appreciated. > > On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 07:07:10 -0400 David =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=E9vot?= > <taf...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Upstream doesn’t wish to see their software in Debian anymore. Unless > > the situation changes in the next few months, owncloud will not be part > > of Stretch. > > Given that owncloud is such a useful and important package, and that > there is currently no credible alternative, this is really sad news, and > I am wondering whether this outcome could be avoided. > > If I understand correctly, your decision is essentially based on social > issues (upstream hostile to Debian packaging), coupled to some technical > aspects (complex upgrade paths).
See my last email here - we'd love to have ownCloud included in Debian but obviously only if it provides a good experience to users. Right now, it seems that that is hard to do within the framework Debian provides. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-owncloud-maintainers/2016-March/002899.html The situation is rather sad and frustrating as users who decided to trust the Debian developers and took their packages over ownCloud's provided packages are now stuck on a version which can't trivially be upgraded to either our upstream version or anything else. We would love to find a solution for them - as I've said many times, our main concern is the end users, rather than politics, rules or anything else. Thanks for caring about this, Jos > At first glance, this does not seem to prevent the package from staying > in Debian. Maybe this just means that the package needs a new > maintainer, who is willing to handle the tough interaction with upstream > and dealing with the technical issues (note that I am not applying for > the job). > > You are certainly in a better position than me to ascertain whether the > package can stay in Debian or not, but I think that it would be useful > if you could give a little more background on the issues that you > encountered. And, if you think it makes sense to orphan the package, > that would help prospective new maintainers in making the decision to > adopt the package or not. > > Cheers, > >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
