Re: Bug#88588: libpam-modules: pam-limits.so is broken
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
>On 05-Mar-01, 18:13 (CST), John Galt <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
>> >I don't see anything terribly abusive here, John. Could you point out
>> >the abusive parts? Can you show me some name calling, foul language,
>> >name calling, insinuations, derragotory comments, "yo mamma..."
>> >references, or anything else?
>> The public response is enough.
>Public response to a bug report is ipso-facto abuse? Since when?
If a publis bugreport is abusive, so is a response, QED.
>> Then wouldn't -user be more appropriate? There are at least three
>> threads being propagated about it ATM.
>Actually, no. The problem is the unstable release, which is properly
>discussed on debian-devel.
Are YOU going to go through and do the redirects? Face it, since
sometime in the area of hamm or slink, the average user is more likely to
use unstable since the widgets that most people think necessary from the
last year or so aren't in stable. Users naturally ask their questions on
-user. This means that to reach the majority of unstable users, one must
at least keep -user in the loop.
>> Encouraging people to not file bugs for whatever reason is contributing to
>> the hiding of problems: someone's take on one bug may cast light on a
>> totally separate (and possibly unreported) bug.
>Oh please. When there are 5 or 10 more or less identical bug reports,
>adding one more is not "contributing to the hiding of the problem". It
>just occupies the developer's time, which is better spent *fixing* the
>problem, so that the users will have a working system *sooner*.
reportbugs deals with this. My question still stands as to why it isn't
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? firstname.lastname@example.org, that's who!