On Sat, Dec 12, 1998 at 10:28:04PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Ugh. I was working on a new release too. I wanted to send it to you - I will > > not do an NMU as long as I am able to reach the original maintainer. I am not > > that self-confident yet as I am a new maintainer ;-) > > Hups? I'm confused. Phil, didn't you wrote to me just a few days ago that > you were giving the ppp package to Torsten? He told me that he will probably have enough time again in the future but he would give me the ppp-package if I am using it heavily. I think he has still better possibilities to test the package at an ISP... > > I suggested Debian for a server in university and told them all the advantages > > - along with other things of the BTS of course. Too bad they really looked at > > it... They told me that they would not consider such a buggy distribution as > > the operating system for a server. > > This is a simple-minded decision. Please take a deep look at the bugs itself. > Like Hamish already said, all major bugs are fixed already. The bug tracking > system contains a lot of bugs that are upstream bugs. They are also present > within other distributions. They just avoid to let the user know. WE know that but they do believe in what I say. > Please subscribe to debian-bugs-dist and debian-bugs-closed and you will > notice that a lot of bugs are being fixed. There are also people working > on longstanding bugs (e.g. like you ad Othmar, like myself who has fixed > a bug which was about three years old but need a major redesign of the > affected package). I am subscribed to debian-bugs-dist and debian-bugs-closed. > However you are probably correct that there are too many bugs. But also there > are a lot of bugs that are *very* difficult to reproduce, understand and to fix. > Of course, there are also a lot of bugs that are easy to fix where the > maintainer just lacks maintenance for his package(s). This is exactly the problem I see. I think it does not really matter if we have a minor bug which was inherited from the upstream source, but many bugs are only packaging issues... > > "we will provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software". > > This is true. There is another phrase, too. "We won't hide our bugs." > I feel much better, if I *know* the bugs and are able to fix them myself > if they get too important for me. If I just notice a bug and can live with > it for a while, I just report it, without a fix and without fixing it locally, > just waiting for the maintainer to do his job. Normally this is ok. Right. But if I am a maintainer of a package I try to fix packaging bugs ASAP. Often this are bugs as "the file foo belongs to path bar". > Several other distributions just hide their bugs. You can report them, but > they won't get fixed. Nothing is publicaly documented. I'm sorry but I only > have very little confidence for them. AOL > > So we (Othmar and I) thought we will simply do something to get some bugs > > tracked down and started to hunt some bugs. I don't remember why we focused > > on ppp in the first time but it does not really matter. > > I guess it's because both of you need it to get on the net. :-) Yes, but it is working perfectly. I did not notice all the bugs in using it :) > Anyway, I highly appreciate this effort. I would really love if I could spend > some time as well, besides these package where I need a fix, improvement or > whatever. > > > I am hoping we can get an initiative which works on bugs of maintainers that > > do not have enough time to cope with the load of bugs on their packages. Like > > the people who support Linus in developing our kernel - the maintainer as a > > benevolent dictator :) > > I feel that initially the debian-qa list was started for this reason. > Quality assurance is an important matter for any piece of software. It is > currently downgraded into a list flooded by the bug tracking system and more > or less dead otherwise. You may want to revive it for your needs. > > This is the official description: > > Quality assurance is important for a distribution. > This list addresses this quality. Hmm, interesting. > > I am not that kind of person who complains about something not working he got > > for free. Instead I will try to change it to the better. That's why I like > > free software - it's so much easier to patch a program you have the sources > > for. I did not really have a problem with ppp - most of my problems are with > > SuSE which we are using at university now :-( > > Because it is bugfree since there is no public bug tracking system? > > I'm not going to comment on this. It everything but bug free. It has a shadow package without shadow support... I am working on fixing bugs introduced by SuSE all day long. The package for the kernel source had no include directory... Very funny! cu Torsten
Attachment:
pgpHpA6CxdDaU.pgp
Description: PGP signature