On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 12:53:01AM -0500, Micah Anderson wrote: > > This is not a symptom tracking system, and there is no bug > > in the 2.4 package that the above solution applies to. > > Except for that when you upgrade 2.4 it *fails*.
As it should. You have a broken package on your system it conflicts with. Remove that experimental package and it will be fine. > > I close these bugs now, because the last time I left them open > > for information purposes, people abused them as polling booths. > > As if force of opinion ever fixed a bug. > > You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want people to know > why you wont fix something then you need to leave the bug available so > that people can see it has been reported and discussed and you've > pushed the clowns into the corner. If you close a bug, and then it > goes away, the next person who comes along in this situation is going > to look to see if there is an existing bug, fail to see one, and then > open one thinking they are doing the right thing (tm). You will then > become annoyed that yet another clown has come along, when you all > along are driving the clown car. > > > If people who don't read existing reports stop reporting without > > If there was an existing report to read I would not have filed a bug > on the subject, but since you think its a good idea to close the bugs > when they arrive, then after a period of time they go away and new > do-gooders will report more bugs. Unless you like swatting at flies, I > would solve this problem another way, rather than trying to educate > every clown that comes around. You know this is hilarious given that there are both recent reports to read, _and_ you got a long personal explanation of the transition plan to 2.6 just recently when you whined why wasn't 2.5 in unstable yet. Are you beginning to see why I now close them without comment. And why this is now about the last time I will explain that. Your legacy will be appreciated by future users I'm sure. > > wx2.6 will be along soon. Until then 2.5 must go away if people > > can't be trusted to play with it responsibly. The more you waste > > my time on this, the longer that will (obviously) take to happen. > > And the more likely that wx2.6 will languish in unstable with > > serious unsolved bugs too. > > make 2.5 go away then? The wheels for that are already in motion, and the reasons to do so quickly mount daily. > If you consider people reporting valid bugs on > your package as wasting your time, then you had better work on making > your packages completely bug free so nobody will report any. Ahh, you are beginning to understand why new packages have not been hastily uploaded to replace the stable ones we have. You seem to run with the wild assumption that I have not tried both leaving these reports open and responding intelligently to them. Perhaps you are right, the best thing to do is just leave them all open and let you discuss the pointless ones amongst yourselves. If it gets too full, I'll keep a list of the 'real' bugs in my packages elsewhere. But this is a bloody bug tracking system. Let me track the bugs with it. If you want to run a help desk for whiny users, do it elsewhere. I need to see quickly what really needs fixing, not who's moaning the loudest about their own personal grief. Ok? What in all of the discussion you've posted here actually fixes a problem? If none of it, why the hell is it cc'd to the bts where it is simply obscuring the original report, if any. If you don't like my definition of bug, here is not the place to discuss it. If you are not going to actually help fixing them, then there is nothing to discuss in the first place. This is not a platform for people looking for somewhere other than -devel to start a petty argument. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
