I think I have to answer this one, if only to show that Christian is not
the only one who thinks the hwclock problem probably isn't a m68k issue
(and not the only one to get extremely annoyed here). So let me set a few
facts straight, and add some opinion of my own:
> * Binary only NMU to include a working hwclock for m68k
> * quick fix for bug #32916
> -- Christian T. Steigies <email@example.com> Fri, 05 Feb 1999 10:00:57 +0100
> I read all the documentation and I was surprised to read that name Christian
> T. Steigies.
> So, Christian, you are the maintainer of the last version of util-linux, which
> includes the hwclock program. You can't answer our questions about y2k
> Why, there is a reason?
Christian is not maintainer of util-linux, he only happened to build
hwclock to prevent a lockup on Amiga 2000 (and Amigas with similar clock
hardware). Christian is one of the (very few) volunteers that build
packages for m68k (packages that usually failed to build automatically),
fixing quite a number of bugs that happen in the build process, and fixing
runtime bugs where he encounters them (hwclock being one).
> This is one of your answer:
> "...I would not want to set the date back and try it whit slink only. No idea
> what your problems are, I cant (dont want to) test it, as I dont have that
> problem anymore... as to what can you do, well, use your imagination, download
> the source (util-linux) and play whit it. ... Do i have to list verry option
> that comes to my mind?
> Just try it..."
> I don't think that this is a good answer. A good maintainer must accept every
> kind of problems. You can't say that you don't want to try...thank for your
> Where is your collaboration?
> Why are you a maintainer of this program if you don't want to resolve any
> problems caused from it. I can't understand...
He isn't maintainer of that program. He asked you to help investigating
the problem that you encounter and he doesn't (how would you go about
fixing something that's not broken for you?). The tone of his message may
be justfied to criticize, but I ask you to consider that he has dealt with
a lot of complaints recently, most of which were not detailed enough to be
answered without requesting further information (and the response to such
a request is often more complaints, or abuse). In that situation, I'd get
more than a bit annoyed with people who don't bother to listen to advice
> I think that you are an arrogant person, and you don't want to accept the
> errors that your program has. I don't like your comicity too. So please be
> more tollerant towards other people. We are beginners and not so experts as
> you. My english is not good, sorry, but I try to understand and to talk you.
> Please consider this message as a friendly one. I don't want to have an
Accepting the fact that Christian _is_not_ the maintainer of util-linux or
hwclock, now who begins to look like an arrogant or intolerant person?
BTW: did you report the bug to the Debian bug tracking system? I don't see
a bug against util-linux regarding hwclock reported by you there ... how
are the util-linux maintaners supposed to know something's wrong? Looking
at the util-linux bugs, I see a few hwclock problems reported so it might
just be a generic hwclock breakage, not at all m68k specific.
BTW2: I seriously consider playing with my procmail filtering rules a bit