Santiago, I would strongly suggest that you take a step back, and calm down. There's no reason to adopt the kind of tone you've used. I'll attempt to make a reasonable answer anyway.
On 09/09/2016 11:55 AM, Santiago Vila wrote: > The bug said stretch, and you tried sid, so you didn't really try to > reproduce it. Only because of this, you have already closed the bug > improperly, as you claim unreproducibility without actually testing it > the way it was reported. Sid and Testing are supposed to be very close, and I didn't see anything special in the build dependencies that would make the package fail to build in Testing, but not in Sid. Do you have such a clue? > Also, the bug said "FTBFS too much often". If you only tried to build > it once, you didn't try to reproduce it either, as you can't conclude > that the probability of something is zero just by trying it once. Well, for other bugs you've reported, the issue was a missing build-dependency. Meaning that the package would *ALWAYS* fail. Anyone reasonable would then think that whenever you see an FTBFS, you're just always writing "FTBFS too much often" (by the way, shouldn't we just write "FTBFS too often" in correct English?). I'd suggest that you make your bug report titles more accurate, then it will be less confusing. > And you claim that there is probably not a bug anywhere by closing the > report, despite evidence enough that there is a bug indeed? Absolutely not. I've closed the bug, and wrote that I was ok to investigate the issue with you. Considering how you've done bug reporting for other issues (ie: your barbican & glance report where wrong, the issue was in pyopenssl, and you've insisted aggressively and rudely that we take the wrong actions of adding a version dependency when it was not needed), it was IMO normal to react this way. I've reopened the bug and set severity to important, and it will stay with this severity until I can reproduce it myself. > I'm attaching three more build logs. Would you reopen the bug now, or > would you prefer that I ask the Release Managers to reopen it for you? Now, this last sentence is crossing the line. While I do appreciate your but reports, you'll achieve nothing by threats this way but defensive and aggressive replies. Lucky, I've been around in Debian long enough so that I have a skin thick enough to hold on being aggressive too. Take care though, it may not be the case for everyone. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
