Re: Packages still using /usr/doc in unstable
I have to disagree with you Dale.
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> My point is that bug age does not indicate maintainer appathy.
No, the lack of uploads and the lack of a maintainer reponse in
the BTS is the only thing we can go by.
> From what I've seen of the results from past BSPs the thrust is to fix all
> the obviously easy stuff, ignoring the other bugs. I don't know about
> other maintainers, but I release a new package with as many bugs fixed as
> possible, so while I may already have fixed the easy bugs, I haven't done
> an upload because I still want to fix several other important things as
> well. Someone at the BSP fixes a build depends (a whole 20 characters
> inserted into the control file) and uploads it. That whole effort was
> wasted, as the maintainer already has this patch in his code.
One could argue that it's the maintainer who wasted the NMU'er's time.
> To make me responsible for finding out what others are doing to my
> packages is simply rediculous. All the supposed reports to the BTS etc...
> are just another point of failure being created in this process that is
> really very simple. Communicate!
Exactly. Communicate through the BTS. Say I get a simple bug
report on gri version 2.4.2. I've been working on gri version
2.6.0 at SourceForge for 6 months now, we're close to release and
that bug was fixed a long time ago. I don't ignore the bug
report, I simply reply to it saying it's fixed upstream in a
soon-to-be released version. Simply having my reply in the BTS
means nobody is likely to make an NMU.
It's only good manners to let the bug reporter know a fix is on
the way. Right?
Peter
Reply to: