On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I understand that, but it is not the point of my report.
For a moment I thought you were the misgruntled kscreensaver maintainer, that's why I explained everything so carefully :) > Which is _exactly_ why you should have coordinated with the maintainers of > packages depending on your package before making a major change such as > this split. Yeah, I missed the reverse dependency on kscreensaver-savers. > It's not a "weakness" in kscreensaver. It's something that has been a fact > for probably a long time. A fact that the split did not take into account > and thus is causing breakage. > It's poor design in kscreensaver, but we'll fix it instead of arguing... > I really don't care about any of that. The fact remains that you implemented > a change which is causing breakage in another package. That is a release > critical bug. I didn't say that it shouldn't be fixed. I'll keep the bug open here until it's fixed in kscreensaver-xsavers. > Great. I suggest that you contact the maintainers of kscreensaver ASAP and > discuss the details with them. It _is_ your responsibility as maintainer of > a package to coordinate with maintainers of packages that have reverse > dependencies on your package when making changes that could affect them. Sure! I think I got that point now ;) > > Cheers, > FJP > Thanks, Tormod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
