Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:29:27AM -0500 , Steve Langasek wrote:
On 27 Apr 2001, Christian Marillat wrote:
*You* are a serious problem.
If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get
upgrade, then install potato.
testing/unstable is for real men (tm).
In that case, perhaps these packages should be removed from testing. The
purpose of testing is to prepare these packages for release as a stable
distribution. If you're not interested in providing a clean upgrade path from
potato and fixing bugs that *will cause problems* for users who upgrade, then
hmm. provide a clean upgrade path with libdb2 and libdb3. How? Does that
mean, that packages using db3 are off from testing? No. You just cannot
always make upgrades painless - like upstream change in postgresql config,
...
So stop this
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Joy sees a potato running down the street and shouting I'm late! I'm late!
;))
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Raphael == Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Raphael It's a pity we have to keep all those upstream bugs in Raphael the Debian BTS when there's an upstream BTS. Each Raphael maintainer should be able to decide if he wants to keep Raphael the upstream forwarded bug. I'd like to be able to close Raphael those upstream bugs by sending a mail to Raphael [EMAIL PROTECTED] giving the reference of the bugs Raphael submitted to the upstream BTS. Raphael Because it regularly happens that the bug is ignored Raphael upstream and then the BTS gets bloated with upstream Raphael bugs, making it more difficult to manage the bugs that Raphael are really Debian related. Thats the reason why you can mark the bug as forwarded upstream. It means that other people who encounter the same problem only have one spot to check for bugs. For instance, if I encounter a bug in Gnome, and maybe I am not sure if it is upstream or not[1], I don't want to have to check n different BTS systems to see if anything similar has been reported. If it was this much work, I'd simply not bother filing the bug report (I usually don't have time to file a bug report, let alone searching for existing reports). This in turn would prevent the maintainer/author from getting my valuable feedback. If of course, you consider it too difficult to manage upstream bugs using Debian's BTS, then the BTS needs fixing to make this easier. Note: [1] then again, the same applies even if it I know it is an upstream bug. I don't want to have to go to efforts to find the upstream BTS system and/or subscribe to upstream mailing lists either. In comparison, the Debian maintainer probably already subscribes to the mailing lists, and has the upstream BTS book marked. -- Brian May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's more likely that the upstream people will pay more attention to that bug, since they know someone has bothered to analyze the problem already to make it easier for them. As someone who has spent way more time as an upstream developer than as a Debian package developer, let me second this. Without exception, bug reports from Debian package developers that I've received have been carefully worded, evidence some understanding of the scope of the problem and its reproducability, weed out misunderstandings, and the like. Thomas
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: CW == Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CW Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Programs shouldn't gratuitously break configurations which worked. When woody is released, and people upgrade en masse to it, they will want their configurations to carry on working. CW In my experience, GNOME has had this problem since version 1.0; almost CW every time I've upgraded, something has broken. Most of the time I've CW just given up and nuked ~/.gnome and ~/.gnome-private, and then CW recreated my desktop configuration. CW It doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Debian packagers to try CW to fix upstream bugs like this. Ha, somebody understand me :) In which case, it's perfectly reasonable to just leave the bug open and not fix it. But don't close it. And do forward it upstream. Jules
Re: Gnome bug 94684
JB == Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Ha, somebody understand me :) JB In which case, it's perfectly reasonable to just leave the bug open JB and not fix it. But don't close it. And do forward it upstream. Already done. Christian
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On 26 Apr 2001 14:09:51 +0800 zhaoway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad. Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian. you're going to have to learn to live with it. The package maintainer is a volunteer, and he knows you are also a developer. His being a volunteer does not excuse him from performing his duties. It actually gives him less of an excuse -- if you don't want to do your job as a volunteer than be polite and give maintainership to someone else who can. [snip] I agree that if you're a noname random clueless mere user then the package maintainer shouldn't just close this usibility bug blindly. The package maintainer shouldn't close bugs blindly in any case. Regards, Alex.
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On 27 Apr 2001 12:12:14 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: [snip] 2) Does your statement mean you will *never* forward wishlist items either? From my experience, Christian pretty much ignores wishlist items. If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get upgrade, then install potato. testing/unstable is for real men (tm). You don't get it. A user who upgrades from *potato* to the eventually released *woody* will get all these bugs. It is good that they can be caught now, but they don't just bite users of unstable, they bite users of *stable* at the point the upgrade occurs. You should also mention that unstable is for real men (tm), whereas testing is for, uh, power users. Regards, Alex.
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian. I beg to disagree. :) -- http://sourceforge.net/projects/dim .. Debian Chinese Input Method http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdlinux .. Debian running on Live! CDs http://njlug.sourceforge.net NanJing GNU/Linux User Group http://people.debian.org/~zw .. XEmacs Screenshots
Re: Gnome bug 94684Subject: Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:39:42PM +0800, zhaoway wrote: Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian. I beg to disagree. :) Maybe we need a subcommitte to determine the validity of that statement ;) -- - -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- - - -\- http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -/- - - -/- I never could get the hang of Thursdays. - HHGTTG by DNA -\- - |--||--||-|--|-|-|-| Version 11.423.999.220020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Le Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 09:20:59PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov écrivait: You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad. Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian. you're going to have to learn to live with it. Certainly not. We have rules to follow, but that's not bureaucracy. And one of the first rule is the maintainer is the one who decides for his package. It's a pity we have to keep all those upstream bugs in the Debian BTS when there's an upstream BTS. Each maintainer should be able to decide if he wants to keep the upstream forwarded bug. I'd like to be able to close those upstream bugs by sending a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] giving the reference of the bugs submitted to the upstream BTS. Because it regularly happens that the bug is ignored upstream and then the BTS gets bloated with upstream bugs, making it more difficult to manage the bugs that are really Debian related. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/ Le bouche à oreille du Net : http://www.beetell.com Naviguez sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:09:51PM +0800, zhaoway wrote: You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad. That said, why don't you report the bug directly to the upstream, instead of insisting on this (bureaucratic) procedure of reporting bugs to [upstream] There is (should be) something different with maintainers forwarding bugs to upstream authors. When a Debian maintainer reports a bug to the upstream, the upstream knows that the bug report has been examined and evaluated, and most likely reproduced. It's more likely that the upstream people will pay more attention to that bug, since they know someone has bothered to analyze the problem already to make it easier for them. One other thing -- when the Debian maintainer has been working for some time with the upstream maintainer(s), s/he may know things like emails which are more often read or people among the upstream that might be more acceptive to an idea than others. Sure, that's cheating, but if it's for a worthy cause... :) while both of you debian developers are pretty sure it's an upstream issue? There's a bit of a psychological difference from the upstream standpoint when an individual user (whether he is a Debian developer or not) approaches them and asks them to do something that they might not like (keeping compatibility), and when the person who industriously maintains packages of their software approaches them and asks them the same. The end result won't always be different, of course. -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:09:51PM +0800, zhaoway wrote: [...] upstream issue? I agree that if you're a noname random clueless mere user then the package maintainer shouldn't just close this usibility bug blindly. Well, actually I am a noname random clueless mere user. But I don't seen, why a bug-report made by a debian-developer should be treated differently? Imagine Developer A responsible for a certain package and Developer B finding an upstream bug. If B reports directly to upstream, the bug won't show up in the buglist of the debian-package. Two days later I find the same bug and will open it in the Bugtracking-System. Developer A will report it upstream now, so upstream will get two bug-reports. Personally I see no advantage of upstream getting two reports for one bug instead of one. For me it would have been better, if Developer B had reported it to the debian bugtracking system instead of reporting it to upstream, since the upstream-bug is clearly a debian-bug too. And now Developer A decides It's not my fault and closes the bug. A week later, someone else hits the same bug, looks at the bug-tracking system, checks that he has the most recent package and finds out that there is no open bug fitting his problem. So he opens a new one, because the bug DOES exist. Developer A closes it again. A third user might open it again. (to be continued) So IMHO a bug is a bug, no matter who reports it. And if it is closed without being fixed that's just plain wrong, it just might be reported again and again. And by being closed and opend again and again, people reporting the bug will get frustraded. I know people who say I reported bugs, spending time invesigating which package to blame (which is not always clear) and perhaps writing and sending a patch. The bug-reports and fixes were just ignored, I never even got an answer why they didn't use my patches or close the bug some other way. So it was a waste of time and I don't waste my time any more. Well, they were not talking about debian-bugs, but that is what is at stake: a developer ignoring bugs might one day find out that people don't care to give him bug-reports or spend less time giving him good bug-reports. But I am just a mere user, so perhaps you should just ignore my posting? -- CU, Patrick. Never run on auto-pilot - The Pragmatic Programmer pgpbV5WWOcvZd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Hi Patrick, On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Patrick von der Hagen wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:09:51PM +0800, zhaoway wrote: [...] upstream issue? I agree that if you're a noname random clueless mere user then the package maintainer shouldn't just close this usibility bug blindly. Well, actually I am a noname random clueless mere user. But I don't seen, why a bug-report made by a debian-developer should be treated differently? Whereas all bugs may be created equal, all bug reports are not. If an upstream developer receives a bug report from a Debian developer with whom she has a good working relationship, she's reasonably assured that the bug report has been confirmed as a real bug, has been researched, and includes, if not a patch, at least an analysis that will help the upstream fix the problem. I'm not saying that all Debian developers always produce such thorough reports, nor that mortal users cannot produce bug reports of this quality; but most users lack experience in submitting good bug reports, and Debian maintainers, at least, know what a bad bug report looks like. :) If the upstream maintainer knows by looking at the mail header that the bug report from [EMAIL PROTECTED] is of quality, and suspects that the other bug says Your software doesn't compile on AIX: please fix it, which bug report do you think she will look at first? :) Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:44:45PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: [...] Whereas all bugs may be created equal, all bug reports are not. If an upstream developer receives a bug report from a Debian developer with whom she has a good working relationship, she's reasonably assured that the bug report has been confirmed as a real bug, has been researched, and includes, if not a patch, at least an analysis that will help the upstream fix the problem. I'm I agree, of course. But it has been discussed, that an debian developer, finding an upstream bug should report it directly upstream without bothering the developer responsible for the package. My point was (or should have been) that a debian developer should IMHO report the bug to the debian-package too, exactly like a mere user would. It helps a mere user when he finds a bug in the bugtracking-system and the bug is both a debian-bug as a upstream-bug. (And bugs existing upstream should not be closed in debian). -- CU, Patrick. Never run on auto-pilot - The Pragmatic Programmer pgpfbm7Ck2ZJA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:22:22PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Because it regularly happens that the bug is ignored upstream and then the BTS gets bloated with upstream bugs, making it more difficult to manage the bugs that are really Debian related. But upstream or not, those are still bugs in the Debian package. I think they should stay in the Debian BTS if reported that way. Use tags to make the bug list more manageable. regards Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Gnome bug 94684
* Colin Walters | It doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Debian packagers to try | to fix upstream bugs like this. It is still a bug to break that way. IMNSHO. -- Tollef Fog Heen Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.
Re: Gnome bug 94684
TB == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] TB This is a *USER* feature, not an API. No programming is going on, not TB even editing text files with obscure hidden customization thingies, TB just straightforward use of a straightforward feature. This is a bug fix from upstream. Quoting /usr/share/doc/gnome-terminal/changelog.gz : 2001-01-16 jacob berkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] * gnome-terminal.glade: cosmetic improvements * gnome-terminal.c (new_terminal_cmd): switch the args to _set_wmclass(), as they were not being set correctly. It is really reasonable to reintroduce this bug ? I think no. Christian
Re: Gnome bug 94684
TB == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] TB The current bug (94684) he said I can do nothing if upstream author TB changes their API. Well, this has many problems: TB 1) Upstream author didn't change an API, they changed a direct user TBissue. False. TB 2) He can do something: a clean upgrade solution could be provided, TBeither in sawfish, or in gnome-terminal. sawfish-ui TB 3) He can report the problem to the gnome maintainers and mark the bug TBforwarded. Apparently you don't understand. Read my lips ((c) G. Bush) I'll *never* change the upstream API, I'll *never* ask the upstream author to change that. TB I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do TB instead is declare real bugs non-bugs, on the grounds that he can do TB nothing. If he can't even forward bugs upstream, there is a serious TB problem. *You* are a serious problem. If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get upgrade, then install potato. testing/unstable is for real men (tm). TB When he said I can do nothing he closed the bug. I replied yes you TB can do something and reopened it, and he elected to mark it wontfix. TB Now, wontfix is for specific reasons, and I don't want to bother TB forwarding the bug upstream is just not an adequate reason. This is my last post about this flamewar. Maybe I'll reply to constructive post. Christian
Re: Gnome bug 94684
27.04.2001 pisze Christian Marillat ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): TB 3) He can report the problem to the gnome maintainers and mark the bug TBforwarded. Apparently you don't understand. Read my lips ((c) G. Bush) I'll *never* change the upstream API, I'll *never* ask the upstream author to change that. TB I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do TB instead is declare real bugs non-bugs, on the grounds that he can do TB nothing. If he can't even forward bugs upstream, there is a serious TB problem. *You* are a serious problem. If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get upgrade, then install potato. testing/unstable is for real men (tm). ^^ TB When he said I can do nothing he closed the bug. I replied yes you TB can do something and reopened it, and he elected to mark it wontfix. TB Now, wontfix is for specific reasons, and I don't want to bother TB forwarding the bug upstream is just not an adequate reason. This is my last post about this flamewar. Maybe I'll reply to constructive post. It looks like the Debian GNOME maintainer is the part of KDE devilish plot to make GNOME look unusable and its Debian maintainer too proud of itself to develop basic communication skills. It's not the first time the GNOME maintainer shows its great ability to talk impolite to other people _without_ valid reason. regards, Jubal (just after reading the Sector General novels again) -- [ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ] [ BOF2510053411, makabra.knm.org.pl/~baran/, alchemy pany ] [ The Answer ] ``I don't think so,'' said Rene Descartes. Just then, he vanished.
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: TB == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TB I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do TB instead is declare real bugs non-bugs, on the grounds that he can do TB nothing. If he can't even forward bugs upstream, there is a serious TB problem. *You* are a serious problem. What an unpleasant, and ridiculous, thing to say. Thomas is perfectly right that it's reasonable to report upstream bugs to debian, and expect them to be forwarded -- it is one of the jobs we carry out as maintainers. If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get upgrade, then install potato. Rubbish. Programs shouldn't gratuitously break configurations which worked. When woody is released, and people upgrade en masse to it, they will want their configurations to carry on working. Some debian packages, (postgres) when the changes to file formats are sufficiently complex, have contented themselves with warning the administrator that he'll have to fix things by hand. But the approach of breaking the configs without telling anyone you've done it, and without providing an upgrade path, is broken. Especially in apparently stable (as in, ready for every day use) software. Sawfish is apparently stable, and many people use it everyday. Upgrade paths can bee hard work --- possibly harder work then they seem to merit --- but it is something that debian has often been good at. If you don't want to/can't do the work, then fair enough. But leave the bug open. It is a bug. And don't insult users/fellow developers like that. Jules
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: TB == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TB I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do TB instead is declare real bugs non-bugs, on the grounds that he can do TB nothing. If he can't even forward bugs upstream, there is a serious TB problem. *You* are a serious problem. What an unpleasant, and ridiculous, thing to say. He's French; what do you expect? -- G. Branden Robinson | One man's magic is another man's Debian GNU/Linux| engineering. Supernatural is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | null word. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein WVATBSVRAQ FGEVXRF NTNVA pgpf3e7E6XGvR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On 27 Apr 2001, Christian Marillat wrote: *You* are a serious problem. If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get upgrade, then install potato. testing/unstable is for real men (tm). In that case, perhaps these packages should be removed from testing. The purpose of testing is to prepare these packages for release as a stable distribution. If you're not interested in providing a clean upgrade path from potato and fixing bugs that *will cause problems* for users who upgrade, then there's no sense in continuing the charade. The community expects Debian to be more than a collection of software packages; they expect Debian to be a well-integrated operating *system*. Whether or not you feel it's your responsibility to fix the problem, denying that the problem exists is not going to help our users. TB When he said I can do nothing he closed the bug. I replied yes you TB can do something and reopened it, and he elected to mark it wontfix. TB Now, wontfix is for specific reasons, and I don't want to bother TB forwarding the bug upstream is just not an adequate reason. This is my last post about this flamewar. Maybe I'll reply to constructive post. If you don't reply, I hope you at least think about how your decisions could affect the perception of Debian as a whole. GNOME is a very widely-used destkop system; if this bug is present when woody is released, a lot of people are going to see it. Do you think they'll blame the upstream, or do you think they'll blame us? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: TB == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TB I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do TB instead is declare real bugs non-bugs, on the grounds that he can do TB nothing. If he can't even forward bugs upstream, there is a serious TB problem. *You* are a serious problem. What an unpleasant, and ridiculous, thing to say. He's French; what do you expect? You are a definitive arsehole. -- Thierry LARONDE, Centre de Ressources Informatiques, Archamps - France http://www.cri74.org PingOO, serveur de com sur distribution GNU/Linux: http://www.pingoo.org
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 05:11:35PM +0200, Thierry Laronde wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote: TB == Thomas Bushnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TB I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do TB instead is declare real bugs non-bugs, on the grounds that he can do TB nothing. If he can't even forward bugs upstream, there is a serious TB problem. *You* are a serious problem. What an unpleasant, and ridiculous, thing to say. He's French; what do you expect? You are a definitive arsehole. Why, thank you, but I also think you missed the very last line of my mail. -- G. Branden Robinson |Kissing girls is a goodness. It is a Debian GNU/Linux|growing closer. It beats the hell out [EMAIL PROTECTED] |of card games. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Robert Heinlein pgp3cYc2yu9M2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Programs shouldn't gratuitously break configurations which worked. When woody is released, and people upgrade en masse to it, they will want their configurations to carry on working. In my experience, GNOME has had this problem since version 1.0; almost every time I've upgraded, something has broken. Most of the time I've just given up and nuked ~/.gnome and ~/.gnome-private, and then recreated my desktop configuration. It doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Debian packagers to try to fix upstream bugs like this.
Re: Gnome bug 94684
CW == Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CW Jules Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Programs shouldn't gratuitously break configurations which worked. When woody is released, and people upgrade en masse to it, they will want their configurations to carry on working. CW In my experience, GNOME has had this problem since version 1.0; almost CW every time I've upgraded, something has broken. Most of the time I've CW just given up and nuked ~/.gnome and ~/.gnome-private, and then CW recreated my desktop configuration. CW It doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Debian packagers to try CW to fix upstream bugs like this. Ha, somebody understand me :) Christian
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Christian Marillat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TB 1) Upstream author didn't change an API, they changed a direct user TBissue. False. You know, your utter reluctance to do more than write the minimal possible words causes frequent problems. Here's how it's a direct user issue. A sawfish user customizes windows using a GUI customization agent, picks an appearance trait, and then does a grab (they click on window). That copies the current Class of the window grabbed into the customization, and all future windows of that Class will have the customization applied. This is a *USER* feature, not an API. No programming is going on, not even editing text files with obscure hidden customization thingies, just straightforward use of a straightforward feature. Then, when the Class on gnome-terminal changes, the customization of course breaks. The bug is that there should be a clean upgrade path, and not just random breakage of customizations. TB 3) He can report the problem to the gnome maintainers and mark the bug TBforwarded. Apparently you don't understand. Read my lips ((c) G. Bush) I'll *never* change the upstream API, I'll *never* ask the upstream author to change that. 1) They don't have to change the API, there are *other* methods of solving the problem 2) Does your statement mean you will *never* forward wishlist items either? If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get upgrade, then install potato. testing/unstable is for real men (tm). You don't get it. A user who upgrades from *potato* to the eventually released *woody* will get all these bugs. It is good that they can be caught now, but they don't just bite users of unstable, they bite users of *stable* at the point the upgrade occurs. Thomas
Re: Gnome bug 94684
Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Debian packagers to try to fix upstream bugs like this. Certainly it might be more work than I could expect Christian to do, and I don't expect him to try and fix it. I expect him to forward the bug upstream and leave the report open.
Re: Gnome bug 94684
You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad. The package maintainer is a volunteer, and he knows you are also a developer. That said, why don't you report the bug directly to the upstream, instead of insisting on this (bureaucratic) procedure of reporting bugs to debian then waiting that debian developer to forward upstream while both of you debian developers are pretty sure it's an upstream issue? I agree that if you're a noname random clueless mere user then the package maintainer shouldn't just close this usibility bug blindly. Bureaucracy sucks. Relying on bureaucracy sucks even more. -- http://dim.sourceforge.net ... Debian Chinese Input Method http://njlug.sourceforge.net NanJing GNU/Linux User Group http://cdlinux.sourceforge.net ... Debian running on Live! CDs http://people.debian.org/~zw .. XEmacs Screenshots
Re: Gnome bug 94684
zhaoway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The package maintainer is a volunteer, and he knows you are also a developer. That said, why don't you report the bug directly to the upstream, instead of insisting on this (bureaucratic) procedure of reporting bugs to debian then waiting that debian developer to forward upstream while both of you debian developers are pretty sure it's an upstream issue? I agree that if you're a noname random clueless mere user then the package maintainer shouldn't just close this usibility bug blindly. There's a good reason. First, it is the sort of thing that might well be correctly solved in the Debian package and not upstream; that is, the best solution might be to provide a Debian upgrade path rather than a Gnome upgrade path. Second, I can't keep track of who upstream is for all the Debian packages. Third, the BTS is an exceptionally useful placeholder for work needed here. If the bug remains open in the BTS, then it serves to indicate the existence of the problem until its solved, and someone might actually fix it. With Christian Marillat's excessively eager bug-closing, one would never even know of such things. I'm happy if Christian doesn't have the time or expertise to fix the bug himself. He should leave it as a bug, or forward it. But I don't know how to fix it is not a reason for closing the bug. Thomas
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On 25 Apr 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: There's a good reason. First, it is the sort of thing that might well be correctly solved in the Debian package and not upstream; that is, the best solution might be to provide a Debian upgrade path rather than a Gnome upgrade path. I agree. Those are the little value-added things a Debian package adds to the raw source. And it sounds like this is a trivial kind of thing to fix. At the very least the maintainer should have a debconf screen popup that says Use KDE! :-) Second, I can't keep track of who upstream is for all the Debian packages. Why not? It's in the copyright file of each package. If it isn't--that's a bug. Zhaoway is right that you're a big boy and can talk to upstream developers without having to go through a middleman. Third, the BTS is an exceptionally useful placeholder for work needed here. If the bug remains open in the BTS, then it serves to indicate the existence of the problem until its solved, and someone might actually fix it. With Christian Marillat's excessively eager bug-closing, one would never even know of such things. This is true as well. What is the point of a bug tracking system if not to track bugs. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Gnome bug 94684
On 26-Apr-01, 06:52 (CDT), Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25 Apr 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Second, I can't keep track of who upstream is for all the Debian packages. Why not? It's in the copyright file of each package. If it isn't--that's a bug. Zhaoway is right that you're a big boy and can talk to upstream developers without having to go through a middleman. Yes, Thomas *could* report the bug upstream. However, he shouldn't have to; one of the Debian developer's jobs is to deal with this kind of stuff, even if dealing with it is only forwarding it upstream and marking it as such in the BTS. Our user's have every right to expect this. Steve -- Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
