On Monday 30 April 2018 10:09:44 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:18:01PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote: > > AFAIK it is still there untouched in git sources, as originally > > mentioned in the bug report > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806 > > > > That aside, the question of whether it will ever get fixed in > > upstream or not, is of secondary importance. OTOH, the fact that > > official Debian developers and maintainers adopted a stance of > > neglecting users' privacy is of utmost importance. > > That is a rather serious charge to make and one which is not supported > by the evidence in this matter. Without a doubt there are personality > issues, misunderstandings, and miscommunications. However, accusations > of malice should be made with the utmost of care or not at all. > > > I had taken Debian Social Contract and DFSG for granted for a long > > time. This thing forced me to review my assumptions about Debian. > > In what way? Debian as a project is made up of ~1000 official > developers and thousands more contributors enaged in a variety of > different efforts. To expect perfect conformance and adherence is > somewhat unreasonable. People make mistakes. > > It appears that the issue here (with systemd-resolved) is most likely > an honest mistake or perhaps an oversight. Had Martin (the reporter > of the bug) ended his bug report with the sentence, "Unless all four > conditions are true, the default Google DNS servers are not used." and > left out the last few paragraphs, I suspect the reaction would have > been somewhat different. The fact is, however, that the second half of > the bug report is essentially a screed against Google, is focused > entirely on the "wrongs" of Google, completely ignores the fact that > Google makes a great deal of positive contribution to the community, > and also ignores the fact that quite a number of past and present > Debian developers work or have worked at Google. > > A far more effective approach would have been to include a patch to > the Debian bug report that effected the desired change. Even better, a > patch should have been submitted to upstream that added a configure or > build option to disable the Google DNS servers. Then the Debian bug > report could have a included a link to the proposed upstream patch. > > Speaking as someone who is involved in maintaining quite a few > different packages, my preferences for making changes to a Debian > package are odered like so: > > 1. New upstream release > 2. Patch created from commit made to upstream source > 3. Patch created from patch proposed to upstream project > 4. Patch submitted to Debian BTS > 5. Patch I have to conjure up myself > 6. Somebody screaming at me that I need to fix something > > Additionally, as the level of inflamatory rhetoric in a bug report > increases, the more difficult it is to get motivated to work on fixing > it. > > Regards, > > -Roberto
You make an extremely valid point Roberto, and I shouldn't have to point out that each of us, including me and you, is inclined to walk away when the rhetoric gets inflamatory. So I'd say, like I say to a military veteran, thank you for your service, such thanks is well deserved. -- Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
