* Ivan Shmakov <i...@siamics.net> [230107 10:39]: > >>>>> Chris Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Subject: no additional feedback > > > Closing for lack of anything actionable. > > JFTR, the workaround for this issue is to put -e either to the > command line, or to the MORE environment variable’s value. > It seems like in Bullseye, more(1) ignores unrecognized options, > so that should work for ~/.profile (or any other file used to > initialize user’s environment) shared across Debian releases.
This seems like useful info. Could have sent this to the report earlier. > I believe that the correct course of action is not to close the > report, as the problem still exists, is still reproducible, and > still affects, or can affect, Debian users; but rather to downgrade > to wishlist and tag as wontfix. > > At the very least, that would help avoid duplicate reports of this > same issue. (As to actionability, I understand the unwillingness > to deviate from upstream, but I’d argue that such a deviation /is/ > nevertheless an ‘action’ that /can/ be performed by a maintainer.) > > My understanding is that the Debian BTS exists for the benefit > of Debian users at large, not just the developers and maintainers; > and in particular serves to inform the users of the issues they > can run into upon upgrade. (And if that’s somehow not the case, > I’d kindly suggest that an alternative BTS is created for that > purpose.) This is not my understanding of the Debian BTS. Indeed, if the bug tracker produces a long list of "bugs" that are unactionable to me, then it is not serving any useful purpose to me. The end effect is one that can be seen for most high-usage packages: actually relevant bugs are forgotten by the maintainers, put into the same bucket as all the other, not-so-relevant entries (not-really-"bugs"). I want to stress that this report is not a "bug" at all: just new, different behaviour. And, apparently a change to conform to POSIX, which seemingly gets upheld as "the truth" by some subset of users. In this case, I specially love that for three quarters of a year nothing has happened - after my suggestion of talking to upstream, just silence. Once I close the report, people show up with useful info and also with opinions on how I should run the BTS for a package I maintain. If you have opinions, please direct your energy instead into helping maintaining util-linux in Debian and, I imagine, upstream. Properly submitted patches to upstream go a long way. I'm also more than willing to pull specific patches from upstream mainline into Debian. Chris
