[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...)

[Philip Brown]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sun May 15 15:52:45 -0400 2011:
>
>> Tell me Ben... what would you have done, if we were already in
>> "automated release to unstable", and someone filed a bug about this?
>> closed it with status "wonfix", so it migrates into current anyway?
>
> Yes.  It's not a bug.  The software has changed and I'm updating the
> package to the modern form.  If the current version supported the
> gnome console and I dropped it, you'd have a point.
>...
> Since you like
> pointing at other distros, show me one that ships modern bacula _and_
> the gnome console.  Software evolves.

The issue here is not about dropping it from the catalog. Its
obsolete, I'm all for dropping it.
The problem here is that you are going BEYOND that, and forcibly
removing a package that a user may wish to keep, without delivering
them an automatic upgrade for it.

We have NEVER auto-removed a program, without providing a
replacement/upgrade for it.
Not since day 1, pre-blastwave days.
It's bad precedent to start now.




>> What about if, as is more likely, no-one noticed it for 2 weeks, and
>> it made it into current directly... then someone filed a bug, "Hey,
>> I'm using 'current', not 'unstable', but you guys just auto-removed
>> a package I'm using? What's up with that???"
>
> Well, both current and unstable are moving targets.  Versions can and
> do change.  If we were talking about stable, that would be different.

"current", effectively becomes 'stable', if this new "workflow" is voted in.



>
>> That is of course, presuming that they even COULD file a
>> bug. because once bacula_gnome is removed from the catalog, usual
>> practice is to disable the corresponding mantis areas also.
>
> Our users can't figure out how to file a bug?

Please re-read that paragraph, slowly. It seems like you didnt actually read it.