Hello Michael,
Now it seems you are contradicting yourself.
No problem.
Packagers not reading INSTALL files are bad
Of course.
but packagers finding the dependencies by hand
are bad too?
No, I never said that.
Packagers finding the dependencies by hand are good.
Packagers finding the dependencies by hand and by using
tools and by reading are good good good.
Packagers never doing mistakes anyway how they proceed
are good good good good++.
(this kind of packager simply doesn't exist)
[...] The dependencies happen
to match exactly what you specify in your INSTALL file (except
Digest::MD5 is missing, as this is now packaged with base perl).
Conclusion: you have time to spend to write useless email like I do.
> And now to something productive: Debian should just upgrade to a newer
> upstream version to fix the bug.
It's not productive since Debian stable never upgrade to a newer upstream
version to fix a bug, unless for a security bug.
Did you consider checking which releases of debian 1.286 is in?
Hint: stable contains 1.252
See: http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=imapsync
Ok. That's worst than I though.
Stable is two years old late (will be three or four until switch)
The "on the edge yeah" Unstable is one year old late.
Please remove imapsync package from Debian.
We can conclude that debian stable is unstable
by all the no-security then no-fixed bugs.
This has upsides and downsides. Consider the admin that made an ugly
workaround for a bug in stable,
Why does he make an ugly workaround for a bug in stable?
Because of a bug? A bug? Fix the bug or ask for a fix!
Contact the upstream developer!
that would break if the bug were fixed
(which is a common property of bugs needing an ugly workaround).
No. You take the issue by reverse.
No rule "never fix any bug in stable" => no ugly workaround (or few few fewer).
A workaround is a bug fix, a wrong one since something is
changed, a fix is done, but the software is still the
two years old unstable one.
The good way to keep bugs and to be two years late: the Debian way.
If an update withing stable suddenly fixes the bug, the workaround breaks. The
idea of stable is to get security updates without having to worry about
this kind of issues on update.
Ok. Debian prefer bugs on bugs than fixing actual bugs.
A matter of taste? Maybe.
I know why Debian prefer bugs on bugs.
Ugly workaround is just bad laziness.
Since packagers don't contact upstream developers,
I'm not surprised they do ugly workaround instead of actual fixes.
It seems that the upstream softwares are diamonds
no packager could ever try to fix. Did one Debian packager
ever try to?
The surprising thing is that the upstream developers
received bug reports from actual users about ugly workarounds
from lazy-fake-stable distributions. I do.
And yes: I have been annoyed by unfixed bugs in stable, too, even up to
the point of recompiling patched packages.
Silly. Packages are a long time packager work made for users
to spend less of their time. Not the contrary.
One person spend several hours to avoid thousand hours spent by users,
even if they spend less hours each than the packager.
I was happy with Debian until woody, I could upgrade by remote without
crossing my fingers. It was the only Linux distribution permitting this.
Since Woody/Sarge I know I have to be in front ofthe computer to upgrade:
I always have to fix some services, sometimes, the boot level.
I have to become an expert for a time on some services.
Thanks to me, I am. Thousand of users are not.
Not happy with old and unstable Stable Debian?
No problem. I switch to other free Unix distributions,
on the edge and stable.
--
Au revoir, 02 99 64 31 77
Gilles Lamiral. France, Chavagne (35310) 06 20 79 76 06
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
