Re: Bug#88588: libpam-modules: pam-limits.so is broken
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 03:22:48PM -0700, John Galt 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.
>
>Checking for previously filed bug reports is common practice. In fact
>russell expressed that his time constraints kept him from doing so.
Common practice is NOT required practice: Just because you offer your
mailman a cup of coffee every day, are you supposed to get up off your
sickbed to get him one?
>> 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?
>
>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.
>Also, sorry if I refuse to accept that your numbers mean that people
Accept them or not: I suspect that they're an underestimation...
>should not make a practice of checking for bugs reports before filing
>them. I always do, and I have to file roughly 50 bug reports a week (and
>some times more). The reason I posted it to -devel is because I wanted
>others to see the PAM problem, and know that a bug report was filed, and
>also to raise awareness of checking for bug reports before filing.
Then wouldn't -user be more appropriate? There are at least three threads
being propagated about it ATM. BTW, you owe Colin Watson for the fact
that there aren't even more: he's been doing a pretty good job of
explaining the situation on -user.
>Lastly, it really is irritating for you to take something as trivial as
>this point to turn it into "is this the type of DPL you will be!?". No,
Trivial? A contraindication of both SC 3 and 4? Okay, whatever...
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.
Discouraging people to file bugs for whatever reason substantially lessens
the users perceived priority: The DD's peace of mind is apparently more
important than the user's working system.
>this is the type of person I am, and the type of developer I am. That
>wont change regardless of being DPL or not. If you do not like how I
>act, then refrain from the DPL connection, because it truely has nothing
>to do with that. IMO, you just want to nitpick because you don't like
>me. I can accept that you don't like me. Heck, I don't like you much
I don't really care much either way about you, you and I just happen to be
on the opposite sides of many issues. One of your opponents in the DPL
election (Branden Robinson) seems to think that my choice of username
is fair game in debate, so I have learned the hard way that there is
nothing that may not be used. Nothing personal, I just disagree
vehemently with most of what you say and think that you have too big an
ego to become DPL. You think that your status as DD makes you something
special, I think it means you signed on to do something special.
>either. However, the difference is, I'll try to avoid confrontation with
>you, while you try to seek it with me. Who do you think the better
>person is?
I seek out ALL confontation on issues I hold dear, no matter who with.
Different strokes for different folks...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 12:35:37PM +0100, russell@coker.com.au 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[1] and can be downloaded to fix the
>> >problem.
>> >
>> >Ben
>> >
>> >[1] http://incoming.debian.org/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing
>> without thinking.
>>
>> John Galt (galt@inconnu.isu.edu)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu
Reply to: