Re: xorg-server FTBFS
Gosh, I hate these kind of discussions!
The time and efforts you already spent on this probably even surpass the ressources required to fix the actual bug.
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Thorsten Glaser <email@example.com> wrote:
> Finn Thain dixit:
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [package maintainers] don't care about dpo
>>> Multiply this by the amount of packages I deal with, because almost no
>>> two use the same bugtracker.
>>> DevRef clearly says that this *is* the package maintainer's job.
> This specific quoting brings two things together which don’t.
>> What does DevRef etc say about dpo?
> dpo is not Debian, although it’s general policy (not Policy though)
> to support it best-effort. As such, DevRef is silent on it AFAIK.
> However, this paragraph is pretty clear:
> ┌──┤ 3.1.4. Coordination with upstream developers ├───────────────────┐
> │ │
> │ A big part of your job as Debian maintainer will be to stay in │
> │ contact with the upstream developers. Debian users will sometimes │
> │ report bugs that are not specific to Debian to our bug tracking │
> │ system. You have to forward these bug reports to the upstream │
> │ developers so that they can be fixed in a future upstream │
> │ release. │
> │ │
> This means that Debian maintainers even *have to* forward bugs to
> upstream which a Debian user reported against the Debian package
> even if the bug occurs on, say, Raspian or possibly even SuSE.
> (Rationale is probably that such bugs often do affect Debian too.
> In the case of dpo, this can become tau if a port is promoted,
> like s390x was.)
> Stéphane, I actually don’t block Googlemail, they’re just too utterly
> stupid to successfully deliver to me (or anyone else using Greylisting
> and not whitelisting their ranges). Same for a few other providers such
> as Hotmail. Some spammers (Yahoo) I do block.