Removing -config

[Simon Josefsson]

Andreas Metzler <ametzler at downhill.at.eu.org> writes:

> On 2009-06-11 Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org> wrote:
>> Andreas Metzler <ametzler at downhill.at.eu.org> writes:
> [...]
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=libgnutls-config;users=ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org
>
>> Ouch.
>
>> I wonder if we shouldn't temporarily add a small debian-specific script
>> for libgnutls-config/libgnutls-config-extra to solve this problem faster
>> than requiring uploads by everyone else.  What do you think?
>
>> We could install the scripts from 2.6.x, attached below.
>
>> It would be good to solve the above bugs too, but they could be done as
>> wishlist bugs and wouldn't hold up the 2.8.x package in debian.
>
>> Too bad 2.8.1 was just released, I could have reverted this upstream.
>> I'm beginning to think that maybe we should.  The scripts would still be
>> deprecated, and could warn to stderr and the syslog to get noticed, but
>> old packages would still build.
>
> Hello,
>
> I do not think usage of libgnutls-config will stop until it stops
> working. ;-)

I agree...

> From Debian's point IMHO now could be a good time for that since the
> next release is far away. The transition looks manageable but will
> probably take a couple of months.
>
> I have not got /very/ strong feelings about this, though. If you are
> convinced that bringing back -config is the right thing to I will do
> so.

I don't know, my concern is that this will delay the 2.8.x upload to
unstable/testing significantly and 2.8.x has many benefits over 2.6.x
(particular improved debugging messages which is useful in tracking down
bugs) so I'd like for as many as possible to use it.

Many of the bugs doesn't seem to have had any response at all.  At what
point do we upload gnutls 2.8.x even if not all bugs have been fixed?
It seems bad to delay the upload forever just because someone
(understandable) doesn't have time to fix (arguable) upstream build
issues like this.

/Simon