> I'm really not happy with this. Believe me, I feel your pain. A lot of the problem is manpower - Ubuntu has over 25,000 packages all told, and we have nowhere close to that many people working on bugs.
I've subscribed to the libpcap packages now, so in future any bugs filed against libpcap, libpcap0.8, etc. should expect a prompt and hopefully helpful response from me in a day or two. However, these are just a few packages in the archive. As our user-base grows, I expect (and hope) that relatively major packages like this one will be picked up, but it won't happen overnight. > no hope for Karmic? That means two complete Ubuntu versions with > this bug. Karmic is supposed to be supported until April 2011 > (-> +1 year from now). We are not discussing about a new feature > or a new library version here. It's a bugfix which could be added - > quickly, after a code review. Please note that Jaunty is also > affected, which is supported until October 2010 - and where it > will never be fixed. This has been a point of long-standing debate. Basically what it boils down to is Ubuntu's official StableReleaseUpdate policy <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates>. Because Ubuntu is used in enterprise environments, the powers that be have decided "the bug you know is better than the one you don't". I don't necessarily always agree, but that is the policy I have to follow. > With a response time of 0.5-2 years to a bug submitted As I mentioned, it really depends if the package has any dedicated subscribers. If it does then the bug should be handled promptly. If it doesn't, then reporting bugs against that package is almost (but not quite) useless. There are a few brave souls who triage bugs against all packages, but they simply can't keep up with the volume, so bugs get missed. > In the past, new Ubuntu versions always introduced new bugs. Yes. Regressions are terrible. Again, a lot of it comes down to manpower. We could only completely avoid regressions if we never pulled in new upstream versions of software. At that point we basically become Debian. It is my experience that the new system for handling regressions put in place around Jaunty's release helped a lot for Karmic (although your experience seems to disagree), but this is also something that should improve over time as we get more users. > Ubuntu has real, heavy problems. Because you as a maintainer > are in a better position to report the disappointments of the users > about the quality issues upstream, I've wrote my complains in > detail here. I've to stress that I do not blame you. It's also ok to > "oversee" a bug report. But due to my experience, it's a common > problem ubuntu has. I'm not a maintainer :) I've subscribed to the libpcap packages so I can see bug reports as they come in, but I have no upload privileges or any other official permissions. I do agree with you, but I don't see an easy solution - the people who manage bugs for Ubuntu only have so many hours in their lives, and it just isn't enough. If you do want to bring this conversation to the attention of people higher-up, I suggest sending it to the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailinglist at <https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss>, which is a public list for exactly this kind of issue to be raised. There's always a couple of core devs hanging around there. I hope I've answered your questions. Sincerely, Evan Huus -- libpcap issue: tcpdump consumes 100% cpu power after interface shutdown https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/414744 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
