Ron <r...@debian.org> writes: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 07:58:59PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> my only concern with the patch was that it breaks other sources >> providing plugins for libao. As Ron mentioned on irc there are none such >> sources in debian so this is of no concern. > > What I said doesn't mean there is no concern, it just means that all the > things which you said would need doing - without so much as a casual look > at the source or what was really needed - were completely irrelevant here.
Please stop making assumptions. I did look at the source and my analysis was spot on. The only error I made was to assume from the concerns raised in the bugreport about plugins being broken that there are other sources that provide plugins for libao. I said *THIS* is of no concern, meaning that other sources, which don't exist, providing plugins break. Since they don't exist they also don't break so clearly they are not a concern. >> I checked the Ubuntu bugs for libao and they are not reproducable and >> all concern earlier versions of libao (although that needed some >> confident guessing) and do not apply to the mutiarch version. > > A few hours before the freeze is not the time to be indulging in blind > guessing games and Works For Me assertions. cf. http://bash.org/?950581 > Your first round of guessing what was needed here was wrong, and this > round of guessing is based on equally little real and clear evidence. > There is a word for certainty based on things you don't really know the > full details of, but 'confidence' isn't the one that best describes it. Again you take one phrase of a sentence and apply it to a totaly different part of the sentence so you to totaly misunderstand me. As discussed on irc figuring out the version an Ubuntu bug was reported for and for which it applies is a guessing game. But given the dates and any aditional hints given in the bugreport itself I made a confident guess what version each reporter used, or at least that he didn't use the multiarch version. All that was just to show you that the multiarch patch isn't buggy just because Ubuntu has a number of bugs open for libao4 and doesn't care about closing bugs that have long since been fixed or made irelevant. An issue you raised in defense of not applying the bug. It was to uphold the argument that the patch has been tested by many people, namely all the ubuntu users that use libao4 since it was multiarchified. >> I would opt for including the patch before the freeze. If it breaks >> something unexpected then there will be enough time during the freeze to >> fix or revert it. It is only a freeze, not a release yet. > > The whole point of the freeze is to *fix* the remaining RC bugs so that > we can release - not to cram in last minute untested things that introduce > as many more of them as possible right before the 'deadline'. > > You're months too late for "if it breaks something unexpected" speculation. > That you left reporting the remaining ia32-libs deps until the last day is > bad enough, I don't see any good reason to make it unnecessarily worse. > There are plenty of other m-a issues that you should be working on fixing > before the wheezy+1 cycle begins without adding extra busywork to that. > > Ron And again you are just spewing nonesens: From: Steve Kowalik <stev...@debian.org> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org> Subject: libao4: Multi-Arch support Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:04:10 +1000 That was 10 month ago. A revised patch came in December, still 6 month for you to do something. Your first response was Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:27:51 +0930. There is only one person to blame for not applying the patch or raising concerns about it in a timely fashion and that is you. It is your decision to make wether you accept a patch or not but then also take the blame and don't pretend you didn't have any other choice. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
