On Monday, June 25, 2012 04:27:20, Ron wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 03:51:14PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote: > > Because of all these sticky problems, without a clear path to proceed if > > I were personally in the maintainer's shoes I'd probably take the "do > > nothing" option and release the current "348" version that has the > > libcelt0-0 codec that has issues but retains compatability with older > > popular mumble servers.
I see you've trimmed the last line from what I wrote, which fundamentally changes the meaning. > The so called "do nothing" option is far simpler than that. > The 348 version fails to build from source and so is undistributable. > Since you insisted on reopening this bug as RC, it, among others, ties my > hands and prevents updating that, and the actual logical conclusion is the > people who preferred "don't ship mumble in wheezy at all" look like getting > their wish now. What I /did/ was find a bug in the latest mumble client, found a bug report that matched the symtpoms but which was somehow closed without any explanation or fix, and reopened it. That was the correct action for me to take and if I hadn't done it someone else would have. > If people would rather write long rationalisations about how to pretend > the problem doesn't exist than Do Something to actually solve it and > create a viable future for maintaining this code, than logically, that's > probably even the correct outcome. I've already spent 12 hours testing several versions of both mumble-client and mumble-server on three platforms. This was intended to help both you and others. If this blame-laden email is your way of asking for further help, it's a piss poor way of doing it. I am willing to help further, but I'm most definitely not if you're going to continue giving me attitude. Learn to ask. Nicely. > To say I'm "a bit disappointed" by that would be an understatement, it > certainly makes a waste of the effort I've put in trying to find some > workable solution - but if nobody else cares enough than to say "just > close your eyes and ship it", then I don't see this being resolved in > any adequate way in the tiny amount of time remaining to do so. > > A month ago you might have been able to convince me of anything if I > saw people actually committed to Doing The Work needed to make that a > viable answer. But all I've seen is people saying "there is no problem > until patches magically appear to fix it", and outright refusing to be > the one who takes any responsibility for the now abandoned code. > > Now people are even saying they want other people to do double the work > and take on all the risk, so that they (and innocent others) can be > insecure without being interrupted from busily doing the nothing that > they themselves would rather be doing. I did not intend to suggest that packaging another version of mumble was correct for this case, but rather only that it has been done elsewhere and that it is up to the maintainer to choose the action to take. I felt this was necessary to explain to Michael because your reply to him was unhelpful to anyone, and I wanted to give him more helpful information. > If the obvious answer to that isn't obvious, then I don't know what > else to say. > > > People I've never heard of are going to need better evidence than some > dismissive handwaving to convince me to ignore the concerns of people > who I very much trust. When the person who has found more bugs in this > code than anyone else in the world expresses concern, it would be dumb > not to listen to them - when someone who has never even looked at the > code says "I don't see a problem", then ... well ... > I'm sure you can safely extrapolate from there. Right now the extrapolation I get is that trying to help you further is not a worthwhile use of my time. I'd appreciate it if that would change. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
