[Pkg-privacy-maintainers] Bug#926042: Bug#926042: drawbacks of not having tbl in testing..

[Ulrike Uhlig]

Hi!

On 27.05.19 15:02, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 02:18:54PM +0200, Ulrike Uhlig wrote:
>> It would be useful to know with which statements or assumptions you do
>> not agree with and why - so that the discussion may become more
>> productive & helpful.
>  
> "cannot be maintained in stable". I think this can at least be tried.
> And IMO its better to have tbl in stable until the 5th or 7th
> pointrelease and then have it removed (if it has to be done), than not
> having tbl at all, never.
> 
>>> anyway, i just want to point out that 'maintaining tbl in stretch via
>>> stretch-backports' doesnt work because tbl is not in buster and thus, if
>>> this bug gets retitled to 'tbl should not be part of bullseye',
>>> maintaining tbl in buster via bullseye-backports will also not work.
>> Do you have any suggestion on how to handle this?
> 
> maintain tbl in stable.

I have re-read intrigeri's arguments [1] and I entirely agree with his
assessments:

1. updates are required because of changes of GPG keys, TLS certs etc.
2. apparmor profiles regularly need updates because of upstream changes
   that we are generally not made aware of in time by upstream and only
   discover after the fact. There is a huge lack of communication here.
3. lack of time & energy to backport fixes on a regular basis.

i.e. I don't see us maintaining tbl in stable. That is certainly a sad
state. But reality is that most of us have too many other things on
their plate and do not see this as a priority. I volunteer to update the
Debian wiki page to document how to install torbrowser-launcher once
Buster is out.

That said, if *you* want to maintain tbl in stable I have no objections.

Cheers!
Ulrike

[1] Message-Id: <87zhpcb569.fsf at manticora>, email from march 30, 2019