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

Re: "testing" improvements


Anthony Towns wrote:
> 	(b) Try to convince everyone (or at least me) that those bugs
> 	    aren't that important and shouldn't hold back glibc from
> 	    testing.
I admit I wouldn't know anything about testing. However, if my limited skills
suffice for observation, there seem to be people expecting/assuming that this
was a case of "glibc is (less) buggy! (2 <= 2)" and seeing "glibc (source) is
buggy! (2 > 0)". Once this assumption is made, this might lead to conclusions
about the harm of glibc entering testing.
> 	(c) Take it upon yourself to contact -legal to make sure you
> 	    understand the problems (and that they're real), and to
> 	    talk to upstream, and get the license clarified or changed
> 	    as appropriate.
If you suggest this to the general public, don't you risk that the
"semi-informed masses" that presently seem to annoy you, will only annoy
upstream (with a reference to Debian in each mail)? With respect to the Sun RPC
code it appears to me (from looking at the BTS) as if it will get solved in time
(march) anyway. (Anyway as in "the problem is known, no need to continue to
pointing it out" rather than "no help wanted".) As to the Gnu FDL issue, I'd
have doubts that noone has drawn upstream's attention to this and that having
lots of people bugging them helps.

Again, these are just my (random user's) thoughts. Maybe I'm just confused.



Attachment: pgp_4d5m28tGX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: