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

Re: Please don't non-bugs in changelog (again)

On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 01:41:16AM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Adam Majer <adamm@galacticasoftware.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 06:16:05PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> >> 
> >> No changes made to the package, so these bugs should *not* be closed in
> >> the changelog.  Instead, send a mail to bugnumber-close@bugs.d.o or
> >> bugnumber-done@b.d.o noting why you're closing the bug.
> >
> > I'm not sure that you have to slam him for having a bit screwed up
> > changelog but I'll have to for having really fucked up 
> > packages. I mean, com on. Before releasing a library of this size,
> > one should really check not only that it compiles but also that
> > all the programs work.
> Slam?  I thought I was being nice and polite.  I didn't even use a
> single cuss word.

Generaly a minor bug or private email would be enough without posting to 
debian-devel. That's what I meant. Anyway, I've added a few notches to the
negative feedback column of current Qt packages. :)

> > I mean, is it so difficult to try to compile the examlpes? I mean,
> > going into the hello directory in the examples and typing
> >
> > qmake hello
> > make
> >
> > check if it compiles and runs?
> >
> > This is redicules. I might expect that there might be a missing file
> > somewhere to some obscure utility or something but to have
> > core utilities like qmake crap out... well.. do I really have to
> > say more??
> I think it's safe to say that these packages were rushed to try to get
> KDE finally into unstable.

Well, it will certainly get delayed even futher now :)

> > I really believe that a maintainer of something like Qt really
> > needs to be using it on day to day basis. Imagine what libc, gcc or 
> > xfree86 would look like if maintainers of those packages were not
> > using them.
> There's a lot of different uses for Qt (does just running KDE count?).
> I think a co-maintainership would definitely be useful to try to cover
> more of the uses of Qt.  Or, at least the packages should be tested by a
> Qt developer before being uploaded.

Running KDE would count for something. But compiling KDE and Qt examples
would go much futher. If the maintainer was also developing Qt based
software it would also be a plus, but IMHO testing whether all the
Qt examples compile and run as well as compiling KDE and checking if 
it runs properly is more important. It only takes a few hours to do these

- Adam

Reply to: