Hi, Sorry, I didn't remember the exact details, now I do. There *was* a bug report earlier than you (and I) thought.
On 09/30/2013 04:59 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > [ Dropping -release, which gets this conversation through the bug > already. ] > > Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> (2013-09-30): >> I'm very surprised that dates of bug reports come into consideration >> here. I don't see why they should. In fact, that's one more reason why >> we should speed up things: it has taken really too long to fix already. > > The idea is to figure out on which side of the balance between fixing > things and risking breaking things we are. The fact that nobody bothered > reporting this issue for so long seems to point out it isn't a > showstopper. > > (Also, assuming both of us meant "worth" below.) I believe you missed this one: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=577925 This bug report was sent to the BTS in 2010. Here, we just had a careless maintainer, IMO, and *me* who didn't care about it until recently: others cared before I did and NMU-ed the package in Sid, at least these 5 other people in this bug report, including one who would have like it to be fixed in ... squeeze!!! >> A missing init script is very annoying for our users. So I do think >> it's worse it. I personally would not use the Stable package if it >> doesn't include a correct init script, and it seems I'm not alone >> thinking this way. I had to point some TGT users to my corrected >> package in a private Debian repository. I would like to avoid doing >> this in the future: explaining that Debian can't fix such an issue >> within 9 months after the release doesn't feel great. > > How can you explain nobody reported the missing script for so long? See above. >> Also, I don't see how adding an init script makes it a disruptive or >> dangerous patch. It has been successfully tested by many already, >> including Julien Cristau who is the original author of it (IIRC, I >> just added a few things in the script, but that's too long ago, so I >> wouldn't be able to tell what I added). > > There's no authoring info whatsoever, and no bug report to track what > happened, so that's not too nice… See above. > Besides, we already saw dependency > loop issues when init scripts got added or modified, so yes, it can be > dangerous. # Required-Start: $remote_fs $syslog # Required-Stop: $remote_fs $syslog # Should-Start: zfs # Should-Stop: zfs I don't see how this could do a dependency loop. >> I would find it very disappointing if Debian couldn't address this >> kind of issue in an existing package in the stable distribution, only >> because the release team think "it's not worse a stable upload". I >> already find it frustrating that it has taken 3 months to get an >> answer to this pu bug (even though I understand everyone is busy...). > > Yes, we could probably do better on the pu reply latency front. But > that's orthogonal to the actual decision Yes. Though that's not orthogonal to the frustration of not seeing things fixed fast enough in Debian. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
