On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20060416145221.GB7942@localdomain>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 10:52:21AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > I'd like for you to back this claim up. So far I've fixed dozens of bugs
> > over the course of the past week at great personal and professional cost of
> > my time, energy, and health. And I plan to keep whittling away at the bugs
> > until the transition is as clean as I can possibly make it.
>
> well, like said, it's a bit late for that. And about your bug load,
> let me say it loud clear: the current load you are experiencing was
> created by your way to package X.org 7.0, not anticipating any of the
> problems. I won't say your current rate of bug fixing isn't remarkable
> outside from the current contexte. But please, when someone run into a
> wall, nobody will think that his survival is a remarkable thing.
It's a bit late to back your claims up?
Come on man, lay off the guy. David made a couple of mistakes in
handling X in Debian. So did I. I made a ton more handling X outside
of Debian. So what?
He's apologised *repeatedly* for what he feels he needs to apologise
for. Just move the hell on and stop being such a dick.
> > I communicated, to the best of my knowledge, what the transition meant in
> > the past [0]. I wasn't aware that I would be breaking a large amount of
> > packages until after I uploaded to unstable. These packages have largely
> > been in use in Ubuntu for several months already. They have been in
> > experimental for several months as well, during which time I fixed every
> > bug that came in about them. I communicated with the release team what my
> > plans were at all stages, and while I didn't realize the scope of the
> > disruption, I did my absolute best to keep everyone involved informed.
> > Every single change I've done to these packages has been documented on
> > debian-x via the svn commits, so everyone could see what I've been doing if
> > they cared to look.
>
> I'm shocked that you didn't anticipate *any* of the problems you ran
> into. after all, you've broken : *dm, fonts, made FTBFS a lot of
> programs linking against xlibs, ... That looks to me like beeing an
> reasonnably complete coverage of the things X.org is supposed to
> achieve. The affirmation "This worked fine in ubuntu" looks like a very
> loose quality quality test for a first upload of a totally new layout of
> an X server.
It worked fine in Ubuntu, across a couple of releases. It worked fine
in experimental -- where I notice you haven't been testing.
If you're concerned about xlibs-dev, maybe you should try subscribing
to this list called debian-devel-announce? There were *two* posts to
d-d-a about xlibs-dev, including a co-ordinated mass bug (and patch!)
filing. I thought your complaint was both annoying and petty in the
first place, but now you're provably wrong, to boot.
> > Anyway, I'm going to continue to work hard on this. If you want to help dig
> > us out of it, I'll welcome any patches you care to submit that are up to
> > your standards of quality.
>
> I'm already fixing a huge load of RC bugs doing NMU to clean packages
> that are in a loosy shape since a lot of time, and that does not seem to
> have an active enough maintainer. I hope X.org does not qualify yet to
> those criteriums.
Are you seriously suggesting that you would be a better X maintainer
than David, assisted by his team? Are you suggesting that, under the
circumstances, you could've done a better job with X11R7?
Or (and I suspect this is more likely) are you just saying this because
you like flaming people into the ground on mailing lists, for no
apparent reason?
If you want to do something productive[0], how about you go and fix some
of these issues, instead of whining on debian-devel?
> In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20060416134720.GH18401@fooishbar.org>
> > > - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm)
> >
> > This is being rectified, as a perfunctory glance at -x will tell you.
>
> Are you serious ? Do you read debian-glibc@ each time you upload a
> package ? please, if something has te be known related to a migration,
> it has to come from the team that launched that migration. It's not to
> the others developpers to go read -x, it's up to you to inform them.
It's not as much a migration issue as a bug. /usr/X11R6/bin should be a
symlink to /usr/bin. Right now, in *some* cases, that doesn't happen.
In most cases, it does.
I don't expect to get personalised updates from seb128 every time
Metacity introduces some bug which results in focus behaving very
weirdly. I just expect that, in due course, the bug will get fixed and
that the fix will work its way into unstable.
If this is a little too much for you, may I suggest the testing branch?
It's much less ... well ... unstable.
> So I really expect that in a really near future I'll hear from you (as
> a team member of the QT-KDE team that packages kdm), that gdm maintainer
> will hear from you as well, and that font packagers will see bugs go
> through the BTS to ask them to change their paths.
I'd be more than happy to chat to the gdm maintainer, and other, more
reasonable, people from the Qt/KDE team about any of these changes.
> > > So maybe it's now time to calm down the upload rate (yeah unstable is
> > > broken, but it's too late for that anyway, and after all it's not
> > > called unstable for nothing), let's have some communication to have it
> > > fixed, instead of pile of clumsy patches.
> >
> > So, let me get this straight: on one hand you're complaining about bugs,
> > and on the other hand, you're complaining about bugs being fixed? The
> > workload of the XSF members getting things fixed is very admirable.
>
> I'm complaining because *you* created the huge load of bugs you have
> to cope with, and a lot of other you don't warn other packagers about
> (what pissed me, and made me write my previous mail is yet-another-RC
> bug because of X we received on kdm recently...). And also in your
> answer to me, you ask to be sanctified because you are currently in a
> hurry to fix them ?
Actually, I didn't create those issues personally, but let's handwave
over that and assume that the ultimate responsibility does actually
somehow fall to me.
So what?
What do you think is more productive: those issues getting fixed, or
dealing with malcontents on mailing lists? Would you actually rather
sit back and see more bugs get filed against kdm, or would you rather
the root cause of those bugs got fixed?
On second thoughts, please don't answer that.
> heh, something does not looks right to me.
You're telling me ...
> > David has posted a couple of messages on debian-devel-announce
> > discussing the transition (including xlibs-dev), and what it means for
> > everyone. Most of the transition was co-ordinated in excruciating
> > detail, including a long time in experimental where testing failed to
> > uncover these sorts of problems.
>
> I guess we do not read the same list, because the last mail from David
> concerns the xlibs-dev transition for Xorg6.9[2]. I've not seen anything
> related to Xorg modular transition yet, and that's why I'm complaining,
> because I'm in the dark here, and that instead of knowing why I suffer
> packaging things against Xorg, I just discover problems I should have
> been warned against in the first place.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x-0604/threads.html
Consider yourself informed. debian-x is subscribed to the BTS for all
its packages, so you'll get notifications of all transient bugs (e.g.
/usr/X11R6/bin, /usr/lib/X11/fonts, /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts) there.
Maintainers of individual packages affected by certain transition items
will continue to get mails about issues as they come to hand, just as
they did for xlibs-dev.
Right now, the fonts issue is the only burning issue, and the XSF are
working to get that rectified, including a full transition plan.
> > (Hence the delay in experimental, waiting for testers.)
>
> Give me a break. For one single package, it's already quite penible to
> use experimental (to avoid to pull every single experimental package,
> you have to edit your /etc/apt/preferences, and stuff like that), it's
> not imagineable that users will use experimental for that reason,
> because with the myriad of libraries that X comes with, either you pull
> all experimental (who is insane enough to only think of doing that ?) or
> edit a 645-line long /etc/apt/preferences, which nobody will want to do
> either.
>
> I honnestly think things have been rushed[3] too much, as many of the
> problems that have been raised, could have been found, warned, or worked
> around in early packaging stages (meaning before an upload).
Wow. You're managing to complain about how the XSF used experimental --
the officially-designated staging ground for experimental packages --
and how the XSF rushed things too much, in the same breath?
Your mail in 3 isn't actually relevant at all, but I genuinely hope the
irony isn't lost on you. If you actually read the mail, and have any
knowledge of what went on, you'll know that 4.3.0-0pre1vX (I think it
was pre1v5 at that stage) got unACCEPTed from unstable, and booted back
to ... wait for it ... experimental. So, are you saying that rushing
was a bad thing, and that the XSF should've spent more time in
experimental, or?
I think it's fantastic that, instead of ever thanking David and the XSF
for their work, you instead assault them, and call them terrible
packagers, and suggest that they stop doing work, because they only ever
create more problems. Your suggestion that you should maintain X
instead of the XSF would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. You
should try it some day, just to get a feel of what it's like.
But I get the feeling you'd rather continue to complain on mailing lists
rather than do that. More power to you. Just don't expect me to ever
buy you a beer.
(By the way, if you're curious, I had no direct involvement in 6.9/7.0.
I provided the initial base packages used for Ubuntu, I provided
counsel on the mailing lists and on IRC, and at one point I made
various patches for 6.9 to fix the FTBFSes that cropped up at that
time. But I wasn't involved in the decision-making process, and I
wasn't directly involved in uploading, et al. I haven't been active in
X packaging for Debian for quite a while now. Nice try, though.)
Scant regards, and speaking for myself as always[1],
Daniel
[0]: Like David, you could fix some bugs. Or maybe you could hold off
fixing bugs for a while, because uploads are harmful (or, so I'm
told).
[1]: Not the XSF, not my employer, not my sister's dog.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature