On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
Kenneth Pronovici dixit:
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I'm a little lost. This package
is orphaned. If you're no longer the package maintainer, why should
it even matter to you whether upstream issues are tracked as Debian
bugs?
Because
① I’m upstream,
② I’m maintaining this package in Debian, and, most importantly,
③ feature requests aren’t bugs, period.
Besides that, this is arguably a functional regression vs. older
versions of pdksh in Debian, which mksh now provides. I think it's
useful to have the change in behavior noted, even if it is only a
wishlist.
That’s arguably a good point.
One of mksh’s biggest strengths is that it behaves consistently
across all platforms, though. DO NOT break that.
Ok, this is clearly becoming way more of a big deal than I expected it
to be. If you're maintaining the package in Debian (even though it's
orphaned, which makes no sense to me) then feel free to just close
#783978, the wishlist request. I'd prefer to have that bug stay open,
but now we've moved into the realm of differing philosophies regarding
bug reports, and you and I clearly disagree on this subject. Do
whatever works best for you.
As far as the mksh behavior is concerned, I never suggested (even in
the original stackexchange discussion), that I wanted to make mksh
behave differently in Debian than on other platforms. I was simply
offering to help get the changes into Debian, based on the fact that
the package appeared to be without a maintainer. If the package is
being maintained, then you don't need my help with that. End of
story. I hereby withdraw my interest in #764401, the ITA bug report.
If you can make the requested improvement upstream, that's great, and
I would really welcome the change. If not, I'll just find some other
shell to use.
Thanks,
KEN
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
