[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Funny situation with Licq.

Nicolás Lichtmaier <nick@debian.org> writes:

>  If you run licq with a full filesystem, it trashes your
> configuration, it can also delete individual contact list
> items.

>  This is obviously a bug, in a full fs a program may crash,
> behave weird, forget edits, but *never* trash a config
> file. The maintainer doesn't think that this is a bug, nor a
> wishlist, the maintainer thinks that the problem doesn't exist
> and he closes the bug...

The crux of the question is this: how responsible are Debian
maintainers for fixing upstream code?  If licq.rpm has the same
problem as licq.deb, is it the .deb's owner's job to fix it?  Or
is it his (or her) job to make sure that upstream fixes are
applied and packaged in a timely manner?

FWIW, I tend to agree with Zed.  While it's possible to make
every single program trap and handle every single error
condition thrown at it, that just won't ever happen.  Yes, it's
good coding practice to check every function for successful
completion, but how often does that really happen in
non-critical code?  If this were, say, the support code for a
programmable cardiac defibrillator, then I'd agree with you
100%.  However, it's a little instant-messaging program, and
nothing horrible will happen if it has to re-generate its config
file after a crash.

>  Check http://bugs.debian.org/76815 and laugh! =)

I was prepared to laugh, Nicholás, but it wasn't that funny.
You opened a vague trouble report, which Zed dismissed
(admittedly a bit rudely, but that wasn't your complaint).  You
then re-opened it without further clarification, and Zed closed
it again.  Then, you offered a pseudo-code fix for the problem,
and Zed remarked that he wished you'd been as helpful when you
first opened the bug.
Kirk Strauser

Reply to: