On Mon, 16 May 2016 00:10:35 +1000 Dmitry Smirnov <only...@debian.org> wrote: > On Sunday, 15 May 2016 3:15:50 PM AEST Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > instead of being told again and again how much of a snow flake > > your package is, and how OK it is for it to behave like it currently does. > > You seems to imply that everything is terribly wrong with the package that > sounds like exadderation. Design may not be perfect but I'm not aware of > better one... > > I'm all for improvements. But on this instance it is hard to safely improve > on problems that you highlighted. It is more difficult than just propagate > error codes or I would have already fixed it... I hope you understand...
I don't understand. I understand that there's a *potential* problem. But here we have an *actual* problem, where the script is silently ignoring errors which is causing problems in downstream, and as far as I can tell, the current solution is to ignore actual errors in favor of preventing *potential* solutions? What exactly needs to be tested in the current packaging scheme so that behavior could be changed? I volunteer to help with that, if it's made clear what needs to be done.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
