On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 07:38:10AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: (...) > Issues: (1) Quality. > sysklogd has 105 open bugs: 3 important (1 with patch), 43 normal (11 with > patches), 11 minor (4 with patches), and 19 wishlist (some of which are > really quite important, such as 44523) Please, when was open bugs a measure of quality? We have crappy code in Debian with 0 bugs because nobody uses it and cares to file a bug. Don't confuse popularity (more popular == more users == more *reported* bugs) to quality (worst code == more bugs). Reported bugs is in no way a measure to compare package's quality. > The source code is a hairy mess, in my opinion, and I can see why these > bugs aren't being fixed. It's been prone to repeated RC bugs, IMO due to > the hairiness of the codebase. (I would also really not like to try a > licensing audit of this package.) Actually, from personal experience, bugs are not fixed because the maintainer is against all NMUs, even those that follow the steps described in the sysklogd's source 'debian/NMU-Disclaimer'. The current maintainer's handling of bugs and suggestions to NMU for this package discourages people to either NMU or help him integrate patches included by other distributions (like Red Hat / Fedora) into the version in Debian. Also, other developers (minus Joey Hess) don't seem to care much about this one since nobody reported in the experimental packages I announced and published in November 2004. Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature