severity 375904 normal thanks * Matt Taggart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier writes... > > > Since you're a DD, I should trust your bug report more than average, > > but frankly: filing a RELEASE CRITICAL bug for an improvement is not to > > my taste. > > According to http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities, > > serious > is a severe violation of Debian policy (roughly, it violates a > "must" or "required" directive), or, in the package maintainer's > opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. > > It crashes the browser losing all browser state data, how could it > possibly be suitable for release?
You seem to have skipped over the "in the package maintainer's opinion" part. A crash in a isolated circumstance, with a plugin that is not part of Debian, is not release critical bug. > > > If you have the flash plugin installed and go to > > > http://gamevideos.com/video/id/4282 > > > > Aha, so the Flash plugin causes crashes. Why don't you fix the Flash > > plugin? > > > > > I suspect the problem is in the flash > > > viewer, but it shouldn't cause the browser to crash. > > > > I don't consider it is possible to offer such a warranty for plugins > > written in C/C++ and dlopen()ed by Firefox or XULRunner. This could > > typically be done for plugins written in other langages, perhaps > > Python, or C#, or JavaScript, but supporting such a functionality for > > dlopen()ed code would require a fork() and I fail to imagine who would > > want to fork() a process as large as a galeon process. > > Just because it's poorly designed doesn't mean it's not a bug. Despite the > difficultly in fixing, I would argue it's at least normal severity. It is a bug and an unfortunate design decision, that I hope they wouldn't make if they were designing it today. But on the other hand, if there was a crashing bug in libjpeg, and you opened a jpeg in the Gimp, would you claim that the Gimp shouldn't crash because of a fault in libjpeg? > > I would have reassigned this bug to the Flash plugin -- would it have > > had a source package in Debian -- but since I'm afraid it's not in > > non-free, > > Yes that's unfortunate. > > > I will simply keep this request for enhancement in the BTS for > > future reference and mark it + help. > > That sounds acceptable, but I still disagree with a severity of > wishlist, this is a real bug. How about forwarding it upstream too? Well we could forward it upstream, but I have a feeling their response would be "duh" or "that's a bug in flash". Actually I'm sure there's a lot of similar bugs already filed upstream. > I suppose another option is blacklisting buggy plugins, but I'm not sure if > that's better. > > > I was tempted to tag it wontfix, > > but perhaps you can come with a patch and prove me wrong when I say > > this would be overly complicated? > > No, I agree that it would be complicated. Please note that filing a > bug is not a personal attack on the package maintainer. Your > comments could be interpreted as hostile. > > > I suggest you stop using the proprietary plugin for now. gnash is a > > free implementation and I think the specs of the Flash format have been > > made public to some extents. > > I try all the existing free alternatives every few months and I will > continue to do so. Unfortunately there are still some sites I want > to use that they don't yet work with :( It is a very frustrating situation. Apparently Gnash is making good progress, but like most other free software that tries to clone a closed piece of software, it will always trail it to some degree. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
