On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Ron wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:42:00PM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote: > > Since the bug appears when you install libwxgtk2.4-python, it seems it > > is a problem with the wx2.4 package. The solution is to Conflict > > against wxpython2.5.3. > > Conflicting with future unknown packages is not a solution to > anything except perhaps boredom and stable upgrades.
wxpython2.5.3.2 is not a future unknown package, it is in unstable. Conflicting with existing known packages whose existance causes the installation of your package is the right thing to do. > I don't want to sound rude, but I've continually had some new clown > want to exchange a dozen justifications on this subject, without > any examination of the real facts at hand. /me puts on red nose > wx2.5 is a broken mess. It is none of wx2.4's business to get > tangled up in that. I dont care to comment on wx2.5's relative messiness, however wx2.4 failed to install when wx2.5 was installed, it seems that it is already tangled up with it because of that. If you'd like to disentangle the two known methods are: 1. Remove wx2.5 from the archive 2. Conflict wx2.4 with wx2.5 In the interests of people shutting up (which seems to be what is annoying you), you should do the thing that makes the least people complain and keep opening the same bugs: #2 and #1 simultaneously. When #1 is complete, remove #2. Its a simple change to debian/control, and millions of seething, unwashed irritating voices cease crying out and you no longer will need to swat at them. > This is not a symptom tracking system, and there is no bug > in the 2.4 package that the above solution applies to. Except for that when you upgrade 2.4 it *fails*. > I close these bugs now, because the last time I left them open > for information purposes, people abused them as polling booths. > As if force of opinion ever fixed a bug. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want people to know why you wont fix something then you need to leave the bug available so that people can see it has been reported and discussed and you've pushed the clowns into the corner. If you close a bug, and then it goes away, the next person who comes along in this situation is going to look to see if there is an existing bug, fail to see one, and then open one thinking they are doing the right thing (tm). You will then become annoyed that yet another clown has come along, when you all along are driving the clown car. > If people who don't read existing reports stop reporting without If there was an existing report to read I would not have filed a bug on the subject, but since you think its a good idea to close the bugs when they arrive, then after a period of time they go away and new do-gooders will report more bugs. Unless you like swatting at flies, I would solve this problem another way, rather than trying to educate every clown that comes around. > checking out why their bugs were summarily closed, then I'm > beginning to see that as less of a bad thing. ... > wx2.6 will be along soon. Until then 2.5 must go away if people > can't be trusted to play with it responsibly. The more you waste > my time on this, the longer that will (obviously) take to happen. > And the more likely that wx2.6 will languish in unstable with > serious unsolved bugs too. make 2.5 go away then? If you consider people reporting valid bugs on your package as wasting your time, then you had better work on making your packages completely bug free so nobody will report any. If you wish to argue this point, then as you've proven you are only wasting your own time, as some other clown will come along with the same bug report after this one goes away and you will dance the same dance again. The solution is simple, I dont know why you want to make it so hard. micah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
