On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:51:18PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote: > > > It seems then that our options are as follows. > > > (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix. > > (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not > > release-critical. > > (iii) Resort to the technical committee. > > (iv) Keep the package split and release sarge with a broken Qt development > > environment. [...] > Though I certainly agree that the current packages are gratuitously > broken, an NMU without the consent of the maintainer seems almost > certain to turn into a pissing contest. Since (i) hasn't gotten > anywhere in four months, I would suggest that (iii) is the way to go > here: this is precisely the sort of case I think the technical ctte. is > for.
Bah, the Technical Committee takes months, sometimes over a year, to do something even as seemingly uncontroversial as voting in opposition to whichever solution Branden Robinson proposes. (Don't believe me? Read the debian-ctte archives.) To punt this to the Technical Committee is to stall a solution for potentially a very long time. If you're certain you're right, and you can get the NMU correct, the only people who will complain will be the package maintainers. -- G. Branden Robinson | It doesn't matter what you are Debian GNU/Linux | doing, emacs is always overkill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Stephen J. Carpenter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgpGAheUueheq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
