Re: bug #350639
What you say about testing is even more true about Sid, yet the Sid
version is fixed. Following your logic there was no need to fix the bug
in Sid at all as Sid users are supposed to be even more skilled in
fixing the problems they run across. Sid is supposed to be more buggy
than testing by its very nature.
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:31:05 -0700, Freddy Freeloader posted:
I have to ask why. Why is this left up every user of testing to fix
this problem themselves when the fix is so simple?
One possible answer to this question would be that users of "testing" are
supposed to be able to troubleshoot and fix problems in "testing". The
maintainer may rely on that and not think there is a pressing need to do
It is also standard flow to fix bugs that are found in testing, not to
always wait until a new version comes down from Sid. That's the purpose
for which testing exists. Those bugs not found while a package is in
Sid are fixed in testing when fixing them does not require a new
dependency or will break some other package. So why should this bug be
any different? It exists in testing so it should be fixed in testing
too, not allowed to just sit for months when it's a very simple fix. I
could see the lag if this was a bug that's difficult to fix and in some
package that hardly anyone uses, but that is not the case with g-v-m or
this bug. It exists in every Gnome installation by default.
Why can't this fix be
uploaded to the Debian repositories? It's not like auto mounting of
cd/dvd's and portable usb devices is something hardly anyone does on a
All I could suggest is to ask the maintainer directly, he may not read
this list. The email address is available in the bug report or with the
In my mind there is no good reason for this fix to go into Sid
and then sit there until the dependencies are satisfied for that version
Well, that is the standard flow. I hear you that it isn't convenient for
you but it is standard.
Testing is what the biggest portion of Debian users have on their
Do you have any documentation to support this, I do understand how you
might think that reading lists and forums but I've never seen any
documentation of version percentages for desktops.
Is the Debian development process in that much trouble, i.e. short of
have such unreasonable versioning rules that something this simple can't
be fixed promptly?
Following the standards is not necessarily an indication of "being in
trouble", it's an indication of following standards and flow. "Stable" is
the version that is stable, probably in some sense that stability is a
result of the Debian "flow".
This isn't important for your question but I personally don't like to
automount, I prefer to mount as I choose and as needed. YMMV
I think I do understand your frustration, and you've got a good example to
work with but standards are standards and the flow has given us very good
stable Debian for many years, I want it to remain the same.