On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:37:22PM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Ben Collins wrote: > > > Ok, first of all, I would like to point out that you have reduced this to > > a really ugly situation. Your initial email to me was condescending and > > completely out of line. That is the reason my replies have been somewhat > > cold in nature. That does not excuse your attitude, vulgar language, and > > downright shitty displacement. > > The whole thrust of my communication with you was that communicating with > the package maintainer is a must if the confusion around this particular > bug is to be avoided in the future.
No, the whole thrust of your initial email (as noticable in your subject) was to accuse me of breaking your package. You stated time and time again, that the problems that were in the bug report were _my_ fault. As you noted, they are not. You have yet to appologize for that accusation. > The frustration you say in "vulgar" language was generated by your false > assumptions and your refusal to admit that it would have been a better > deal if you had talked with me before doing an NMU. I have never objected > to the technical content of the NMU. Port NMU's are not uncommon. The fact that I was led to believe that there was a bug report already filed is the only mistake I have made. Even if there wasn't a bug report filed, and I took the time to do one, I would have still NMU'd the package, simply because I can get it out faster than you. However, I would have only done a binary only NMU so as not to cause recompile on other archs. You fail to realize that sometimes arch uploads need to supercede ordinary NMU practices since generally speaking, the maintainer does not have the ability (nor sometimes the knowledge) to fix problems on that arch. The normal protocol is as follows: 1) Do a binary only NMU with the proper fix 2) File a bug report with the patch to the BTS Now, since I was under the impression that #2 was already done, I did not follow through. Please forgive my complete failure on #2, I guess I should be perfect like you, and do everything correctly all the time. Sorry if I'm only human. > > This is on my sparc, using the package I NMU'd. The links are fine > > (although I think the nameing of the library is really fscked up, but > > that's beside the point). The bug report you refer to is not of the sparc > > arch upload I made. Now, after looking at the bug report, and your rules > > file, there is no way this was because of the current package. My only > > conclusion is a) ldconfig, or b) bad upgrade, from an older package. > > > As I told you earlier, the bug report is bogus, as the reporter failed to > install the libgmp2-dev package which supplies the links he was "missing". > > The only purpose served by this report was to let me know that there was > an NMU out there. a) Not installing the -dev package shouldn't have left a dangling symlink so I think there is still a bug in your packaging of libgmp2. b) You should have investigated this before emailing me and accusing me of breaking your package. Your pettiness fueled the escalation factor of this problem. Ben
