FlameWar here people... (was: Re: Bug#88588: libpam-modules: pam-limits.so is broken)
It was been quite some time since the last flamewar, and reading -devel
was becoming boring...
Thanks. (from a user)
I changed the subject just in case someone didn't see it...
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 15:22:48 -0700 (MST)
John Galt <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Ummm, no they don't. To be precise, there is information on the BTS
> webpage on how to get the information, yet there is nothing there that
> implies you must do it.
> Logically, if it's been reported 10 times within 24 hours, it means that
> 100 or so people found their system unsuitable (I've found that only about
> 10% of the people who find bugs report them, precisely because of abuse
> like this) within the same amount of time, and hundreds more will do so
> before your fix gets out of incoming. That you'd release a broken package
> is one thing, but the fact that you responded abusively and publicly to a
> bug report sickens me. Is this the type of person that should be DPL?
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 12:35:37PM +0100, email@example.com wrote:
> >> Package: libpam-modules
> >> Version: 0.72-15
> >> Severity: critical
> >> After installing the latest pam modules cron and ssh can't operate properly.
> >> It seems that the pam-limits.so module decides to not allow the operations
> >> but does not log the reasons anywhere.
> >> I see the following in my cron logs:
> >People really need to start checking the BTS before filing new bugs.
> >This bug has been reported ATLEAST 10 times over the past 24 hours.
> >0.72-16 is already in incoming and can be downloaded to fix the
> > http://incoming.debian.org/
> All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing
> without thinking.
> John Galt (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Fabrice Gautier <email@example.com>