On Monday 11 December 2006 15:56, A. Costa wrote: [...] > "Now I have proved you wrong, and also that you are an a******." > [4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=338651
That report also starts with > [...] I find it a bit strange to > have network and bluetooth dysfunctional all of a sudden just because > some italian dude finds debian to be his pet laboratory more than a > serious quality distribution. > > (No I'm not expecting any help from the maintainer, but please prove me > wrong) which makes the bug reporter not only foolish and disobedient, but also at least as arrogant as your quote from Marco. I'm somewhat happy to see you using #349278 as your "typical user slam". Hopefully the fact that you chose this report indicates that Marco's behavior there *was* an exception. > > D'Itri makes me wonder if Debian's policies have somehow changed since > 2003, privately, without yet being codified. I believe any of these > would have been deprecated in the recent past: > > 1) Maintainers closing bugs based solely on an importance threshold. > "Minor" bugs a waste of time because they're minor. > > 2) Maintainers closing bugs 'upstream' bugs they don't > feel like forwarding. Forwarding bugs wastes energy. > > 3) Maintainers threatening reprisals against users who persist in > "transgressing the unwritten law" (to paraphrase the > Piranha Brothers). > > 4) Thus maintainers make private rules which supersede > written Debian policy. Locally asserted custom trumps united > public agreements. Then please indicate which bugs make you believe that. Marco's actions on this report neither reflects 1 or 2, but rather the fact that Marco doesn't consider this a bug. A maintainer not acknowledging a specific minor bug is a different issue. In this case, I disagree that this is a bug. The error message might be confusing or ambiguous, but not *misleading*, since the error message is correct. I therefore suggest you to downgrade the severity to wishlist and retitle to something like "Please issue less confusing error message than "Module /.../foo.ko not found."". You should also suggest a new solution. This doesn't look like a *parsing* issue. Either LKM names can't contain "/" and/or ".", and the argument is simply *invalid*, or the module name is valid but the module is really not found, in which case you'd want a note reading something like "Module names containing the character "." are rare. The argument provided is probably a module file, which is not supported." You should also remove the help tag since a bug which won't be fixed doesn't need help. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
