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
32 matches
Mail list logo
