On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:12:39PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > While I see a few interesting related points and questions in your > message, I still don't understand what is your position wrt. > what's most relevant here IMO, so I figured I would ask you instead of > arguing based on wrong assumptions: :) thanks for asking!
> Fundamentally, do you disagree with the main point this bug report is > about i.e. "Should not be part of Stretch"? yes, somewhat, but I acknowledge that it's not my call. > And if you indeed do want to see this package in Stretch, how do you > plan to be involved on maintaining it via stable-security or > stable-updates? I don't plan to be involved. My trigger to send this mail are those mails generated through the failures on https://jenkins.debian.net/view/torbrowser/ - I get a daily mail that torbrowser-launcher in jessie is broken, and weekly mails about the breakage in wheezy-backports and jessie-backports. So of course what I shall do is to disable those mails to me, after all I'm one of the maintainers of jenkins.d.n :) But then I fear that torbrowser-launcher will bitrot even more… So, in summary, yes, I disagree with this bugreport that I think that the package is supportable in stable and then I realized that I also question the plan to support it in stretch-backports, cause I'm very aware of the status of the package in stable-backports and oldstable-backports today. I realize that my position is not the most helpful one, but I thought and think that it's also not helpful to be aware of problems and stay silent on them. -- cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
