On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:29:27AM -0500 , Steve Langasek wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2001, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
> > *You* are a serious problem.
>
> > If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get
> > upgrade, then install potato.
>
> > testing/unstable is for real me
"JB" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> Ha, somebody understand me :)
JB> In which case, it's perfectly reasonable to just leave the bug open
JB> and not fix it. But don't close it. And do forward it upstream.
Already done.
Christian
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 07:04:52PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> "CW" == Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> CW> Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Programs shouldn't gratuitously break configurations which worked.
> >> When woody is released, and people upgrade en mas
Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's more likely that the upstream people will pay more attention to
> that bug, since they know someone has bothered to analyze the
> problem already to make it easier for them.
As someone who has spent way more time as an upstream developer than
as a De
> "Raphael" == Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raphael> It's a pity we have to keep all those upstream bugs in
Raphael> the Debian BTS when there's an upstream BTS. Each
Raphael> maintainer should be able to decide if he wants to keep
Raphael> the upstream forwarded
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:22:22PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Because it regularly happens that the bug is ignored upstream and then the
> BTS gets bloated with upstream bugs, making it more difficult to manage
> the bugs that are really Debian related.
But upstream or not, those are still bu
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:44:45PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> Whereas all bugs may be created equal, all bug reports are not. If an
> upstream developer receives a bug report from a Debian developer with whom she
> has a good working relationship, she's reasonably assured that the bug re
Hi Patrick,
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Patrick von der Hagen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:09:51PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
> [...]
> > upstream issue? I agree that if you're a noname random clueless mere
> > user then the package maintainer shouldn't just close this usibility
> > bug blindly.
> Wel
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:09:51PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
[...]
> upstream issue? I agree that if you're a noname random clueless mere
> user then the package maintainer shouldn't just close this usibility
> bug blindly.
Well, actually I am a noname random clueless mere user.
But I don't seen, why
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:09:51PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
> You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad.
>
> That said, why don't you report the bug directly to the upstream, instead
> of insisting on this (bureaucratic) procedure of reporting bugs to
> [upstream]
There is (should
Le Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 09:20:59PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov écrivait:
> > You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad.
>
> Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian. you're going to
> have to learn to live with it.
Certainly not. We have rules to follow, but that's
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:39:42PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
> > Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian.
>
> I beg to disagree. :)
Maybe we need a subcommitte to determine the validity of that statement ;)
--
-> -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- <
> Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian.
I beg to disagree. :)
--
http://sourceforge.net/projects/dim .. Debian Chinese Input Method
http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdlinux .. Debian running on Live! CDs
http://njlug.sourceforge.net NanJing GNU/Linux User Gro
On 27 Apr 2001 12:12:14 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> [snip]
> 2) Does your statement mean you will *never* forward wishlist items
>either?
>From my experience, Christian pretty much ignores wishlist items.
>
> > If you don't want to change your configuration each
On 26 Apr 2001 14:09:51 +0800
zhaoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad.
Bureaucracy is integral to an organization such as Debian. you're going to
have to learn to live with it.
> The package maintainer is a volunteer, and he knows you are
"TB" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
TB> This is a *USER* feature, not an API. No programming is going on, not
TB> even editing text files with obscure hidden customization thingies,
TB> just straightforward use of a straightforward feature.
This is a bug fix from upst
* Colin Walters
| It doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Debian packagers to try
| to fix upstream bugs like this.
It is still a bug to break that way. IMNSHO.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are.
Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It doesn't seem very reasonable to expect the Debian packagers to try
> to fix upstream bugs like this.
Certainly it might be more work than I could expect Christian to do,
and I don't expect him to try and fix it.
I expect him to forward the bug upstr
Christian Marillat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TB> 1) Upstream author didn't change an API, they changed a direct user
> TB>issue.
>
> False.
You know, your utter reluctance to do more than write the minimal
possible words causes frequent problems.
Here's how it's a direct user issue.
"CW" == Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CW> Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Programs shouldn't gratuitously break configurations which worked.
>> When woody is released, and people upgrade en masse to it, they will
>> want their configurations to carry on working.
CW> In
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Programs shouldn't gratuitously break configurations which worked.
> When woody is released, and people upgrade en masse to it, they will
> want their configurations to carry on working.
In my experience, GNOME has had this problem since version 1.0; almos
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 05:11:35PM +0200, Thierry Laronde wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> > > > "TB" == Thomas
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 09:15:12AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> > > "TB" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > TB> I'm perfectly happy for hi
On 27 Apr 2001, Christian Marillat wrote:
> *You* are a serious problem.
> If you don't want to change your configuration each time you did a apt-get
> upgrade, then install potato.
> testing/unstable is for real men (tm).
In that case, perhaps these packages should be removed from testing. Th
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:54:30PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> > "TB" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > TB> I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do
> > TB> instead is declare real
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:08:31PM +0200, Christian Marillat wrote:
> "TB" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TB> I'm perfectly happy for him to just do (3). But what he wants to do
> TB> instead is declare real bugs non-bugs, on the grounds that he "can do
> TB> nothing". If h
27.04.2001 pisze Christian Marillat ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> TB> 3) He can report the problem to the gnome maintainers and mark the bug
> TB>forwarded.
> Apparently you don't understand. Read my lips ((c) G. Bush) I'll *never*
> change the upstream API, I'll *never* ask the upstream author to
"TB" == Thomas Bushnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
TB> The current bug (94684) he said "I can do nothing if upstream author
TB> changes their API". Well, this has many problems:
TB> 1) Upstream author didn't change an API, they changed a direct user
TB>issue.
False.
TB> 2) He
On 26-Apr-01, 06:52 (CDT), "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25 Apr 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> Second, I can't keep track of who "upstream" is for all the Debian
>> packages.
>>
>
> Why not? It's in the copyright file of each package. If it isn't--that's
> a bug.
>
>
On 25 Apr 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> There's a good reason.
>
> First, it is the sort of thing that might well be correctly solved in
> the Debian package and not upstream; that is, the best solution might
> be to provide a Debian upgrade path rather than a Gnome upgrade path.
>
I agree.
zhaoway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The package maintainer is a volunteer, and he knows you are also a
> developer. That said, why don't you report the bug directly to the
> upstream, instead of insisting on this (bureaucratic) procedure of
> reporting bugs to debian then waiting that debian dev
You guys are getting more and more bureaucratic. That's sad.
The package maintainer is a volunteer, and he knows you are also a
developer. That said, why don't you report the bug directly to the
upstream, instead of insisting on this (bureaucratic) procedure of
reporting bugs to debian then waiti
A more-or-less frequent occurrence with gnome upgrades is that
something changes which causes preferences to get hosed. Each time I
notice such a problem, I have reported a bug report, and each time,
Christian Marillat has decided to ignore the issue.
This is a very significant user issue; peopl
33 matches
Mail list logo
