Your message dated Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:22:49 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Processed: There has to be an explanation for closing bugs
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: qmail-src
Version: N/A
Severity: normal
Hello,
As announced in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/09/msg00630.html, this bug
report is part of a mass bug filing campaign about the "abuse" of
debconf templates of type "note".
First of all, in case you fixed you package in the short timeframe
that happned between my announcement and this bug report, please
accept my apologies and, of course, feel free to ask me to close the
bug report...or just close it yourself.
One or more template(s) has/have been identified in qmail-src
debconf templates and an automated analysis mentions that it/they is/are
displayed to users at low or medium priority.
The debconf-devel(7) manpage makes it clear that the "note" type should
be used only for important notes that the user really should see.
On the other hand, the "low" priority is meant for very trivial items
that have defaults that will work in the vast majority of
cases. The "medium" priority is meant for normal items
that have reasonable defaults.
As such, a note should only be used for IMPORTANT stuff, so actually
all debconf notes should be priority high....or should not exist.
Please consider one of the following options:
- move the text of the debconf note to the README.Debian file. The drawback
is that the text will not be translatable anymore, which will be worked
in the future. However, given that your note is very rarely displayed,
this is indeed not a very strong drawback
- move the text to NEWS.Debian. This option should however rather be
reserved for future texts of the same kind as the contents of this file
is only displayed when users upgrade the package
- change the template type to "error" in case this note is meant to be
displayed only in some cases when a problem shows up during execution of
the maintainer's scripts. Please check debconf-devel(7) for details
- raise the priority to "high". This should be the last option to consider.
It should be used only in cases where you judge that the information you
display is VITAL for users of your package and that one could NOT USE IT
if not reading the note.
A dedicated check will be proposed to the lintian and linda package
maintainers so that future uses of low and medium priority note
templates will be discouraged in the future. So, if you wish you
package to be lintian-clean, then you need to fix this..:-)
Template(s) identified in your package:
qmail-src -- config:7 qmail-src/build
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL
set to fr_FR.UTF-8)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Rubbish. Policy changes have never required a vote. Policy
> changes happen all the time -- without vote. What on earth gave you
> the idea we vote on technical policy?
According to the Debian Constitution, policy changes are implemented by way of
general resolution, which requires a vote. Go read the constitution.
> > You have not addressed any of the concerns in my last email, most
> > notably the fact that I contend this violates section 4 of the
> > social contract.
>
> Are you sure you have passed through NM? Usually people who
> bring up SC strawman arguments are weeded out then. Since when have
> letting low priority messages to installers via a debconf note been
> better than recording it in NEWS.Debian so it is available for all
> other users and also recorded for posterity?
I went through NM in 1998.
Just for the record, there was never a single low priority note in qmail-src.
All notes were either medium or high.
> > I'm not "fixing the bloody package, man" as I do not see it as
> > broken.
>
> Whether or not you see it as broken is irrelevant. There are
> mechanisms in place to let users be aware of low priority messages,
> and the debconf note ain't it.
>
> > Don't you people have anything better to do than harass me over
> > something as trivial as the severity of a message in a debconf file?
> > I mean ... honestly ...
>
> I am concerned about quality of implementation for Debian. If
> you are not, I suggest you resign from the project.
I suggest you get off your high horse, and stop being such an insufferable jerk.
What you see as quality, I see as standing in the way of quality. If you can't
be nice, perhaps you should resign. It's a matter of opinion, and I disagree
with you. A couple people sending notes back and forth in the -devel list is
not a general consensus, nor is it an official policy change. The debconf
documentation hasn't been updated, and in the current debconf documentation,
notes are described as:
"something important, that the user really should see."
Which apparently, Joey has had a problem with since 2001, but it has never been
changed. Instead of pushing your will amongst the mass of developers, perhaps
you should look at the root of -*why*- things have been done this way, and try
to find a compromise with the maintainers, rather than an arbitrary edict of
absolute conformity.
Stop re-opening this bug. I have removed the notes completely, and uploaded a
new package. There is no further reason for this bug to be open. Check
qmail-src release -40. This whole thing is so horribly ignorant and such a
waste of time. I sure hope you all are happy, and got what you wanted.
Jon
--- End Message ---
