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


OK Lazarus, you convinced me.  I haven't got time to maintain lilo so I'll 
have to give it up.

>From now on I'll only fix major bugs and not upload any new upstream 
versions.  I'll leave them for the next maintainer.

Russell Coker

On Mon, 5 Aug 2002 00:27, you wrote:
> Package: lilo
> Version: 1:22.3.2-1
> lilo (1:22.3.2-1) unstable; urgency=HIGH
>   * New upstream version.
>     Closes: #136757
>  -- Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>  Sat,  3 Aug 2002 23:34:00 +0200
> "WTF?  If someone files a wishlist bug about a new upstream version,
> WHY would this qualify as urgency high?  (And ALL-CAPS for some reason
> as well?)  Is the maintainer on crack?"
> That's the thought process one might reasonably expect when seeing the
> above via apt-listchanges (and therefore say a resounding NO WAY when
> asked if you want to continue.)
> That's the extent of the changelog entry, there is nothing whatsoever
> about security mentioned, nothing about anything of high urgency.
> Or is the maintainer talking about being high when he packaged this?
> Why can't some people write a reasonable changelog entry?  What happened
> to point 4 of the Social Contract?  I thought "the needs of our
> users and the free-software community" was supposed to come before
> developer-laziness.

Reply to: