Re: Announcing the availability of first Qt 3.3 packages

[Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org>]

Martin Loschwitz <madkiss@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:40:57PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>> Martin Loschwitz <madkiss@debian.org> writes:
>> 
>> If your Qt package were properly maintained, I wouldn't bother you with
>>
> So you admit you are bothering? That's a point to start.
>
>> this.  However, I think it's been in quite poor condition for a very
>> long time now and I don't see them getting any better.  Furthermore, you
>> completely ignore every bug filed against the package.  Start
>> maintaining your package properly before you flame me.
>> 
> The only serious trouble in Qt3 until some days ago was that XCursor made it
> imposslbe to compile Qt3. Nothing else. You need to distinguish between "I
> think they are poorly maintained" and "they are poorly maintained".

These pissing matches are pointless, but if you insist...

* The XCursor bug had been present ever since XFree86 4.3 was uploaded
  to unstable, which was in mid-February.  I reported it at the end of
  April, and it was not fixed until mid-June.  That's a *very* long time
  for a FTBFS bug to be present.

* There's still an RC bug filed against the package: #246198

* The lack of STL support should have been considered RC since it broke
  compatibility with every other distro and did not allow quite a bit of
  software to build.  That bug was open for a long time and was only
  fixed with the last upload.

* There are still several bug reports open for missing header files.
  Those should also be considered RC.

* The package descriptions are mostly horrible; a bug has been filed
  against them that has been open for a very long time.  And that's
  something that is very easy to fix.

* There are dozens of bugs that are fixed/no longer relevant but are
  still open, most of which you never even replied to.  And there'd be
  more if I had already closed some of them.

* The compat headers split was against the consensus of debian-devel,
  but was done anyway.

* The move from /usr/share/qt to /usr/share/qt3 was also ill-advised
  since it broke *tons* of existing configure scripts with absolutely no
  gain (since different Qt versions still cannot be concurrently
  installed).

There.  I hereby assert, "They are poorly maintained."  OK?

Why do you insist so stubbornly on maintaining the package?  You don't
take very good care of it, and you've said in the past that you don't
even do any Qt development.

-- 
You win again, gravity!