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

Re: Bug#192869: surfraw: surprized you added so many commands to /usr/bin

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:38:57AM +0200, Christian Surchi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 10:12:52AM +0100, Stephen Stafford wrote:
> > > Which solutions are you suggesting?
> > >  
> > 
> > The main one I think is good is having a /usr/bin/surfraw/ or similar that
> > users can add to their $PATH, or alias on a case by case basis as they prefer.
> I thought of it in the past... I was not sure about moving to that
> solution because I didn't know if it could be easily usable in that
> way... but I think the presence of all those binaries is not a great
> situation.
> > Properly documented and executed, I believe this to be the most robust
> > solution (certainly better than pre (or post) fixing "sr" to all the
> > binaries).
> Ok. Do you think about moving surfraw binary too?

No, I suspect the sufraw binary can stay in /usr/bin, and perhaps have a
note in the usage to tell people that they need to add /usr/bin/surfraw to
their $PATH to get all these great commands.

> > > > The package seems to be effectively unusable at the moment (see bug #200164)
> > > > and looks effectively unmaintained to me (no upload in over a year, and no
> > > > buglog entries from the maintainer in that long that I can find.)
> > > 
> > > I know...
> > 
> > Why not?  There really are bloody *trivial* bugs to fix there!  The patch to
> > fix #200164 (a critical bug!) is about 2 lines!  Even if you didn't have the
> > skill to do it yourself, why isn't it tagged help?
> I wrote "I know", because it's true. I can't understand your "Why not?".

My "why not?" is asking why you hadn't made an upload in over a year? There
are easy to fix bugs here.  You don't need to await a new upstream release
to fix bugs.  There are some packaging related bugs, and even for upstream
type bugs, that's why the Debian diff exists...so we can fix bugs without
needing to wait for a new upstream.

> Because I hoped to find time... and in fact I work on a few package a
> few time ago... and then because I had another doubt about surfraw...
> because there's no upstream development from so many time. I hoped in a
> mail from its author to decide about its life or its death... but no
> results and in the meatime time passed.

There's nothing stopping you (or someone) from fixing these things yourself
and taking the package forwards.  This is why we like Free Software.
Upstream stops being interested, then we can do it ourselves.  You DO in
fact understand what Free Software is I assume?  (this package is even
public domain!)

> I've already said that I thinks that a NMUed new package is necessary
> and I describe briefly the upstream situation for surfraw too. Please,
> read other mails from me too. :)

I have done.  I'm just not seeing any evidence from you (apart from mails to
say "don't hijack my precious package, but instead YOU coordinate and NMU it
FOR me") that you are taking much interest here.  Why am I having to be the
one to coordinate and organise an NMU?  It's YOUR package.  And if you
really are active, why do we need an NMU at all?  Have you suddenly
forgotten how to upload by yourself?  Have you perhaps lost your GPG key?
Have you had your login set to /bin/false?  What is preventing you from
making a *maintainer* upload?

> I can't understand you behaviour... I'm simply admitting my negligence
> and trying to help people that are trying to work on surfraw... do you
> need to blame me in all the way you know? :)

My behaviour is based on my perception of your apathy about the package.
You have yet to show me one single reason to think that you care about the
package and deserve to keep it.

> I've already said that I'm happy for all this interest about surfraw, so
> I'm open to all the solutions... I'd like to help again with it, so I'm
> discussing with you and other interested maintainers.
> Is there a NMU ready? Good! Let's move surfraw in a better state and
> then we can decide... do you like this way? Can we move discussione
> between us and other interested persons?

What the hell are you so interested in an NMU for?  If you are active, then
damn well make a MAINTAINER upload!

"Can we move discussions..."?  I don't know, can you? This is NOT my
package, it's (technically just about) YOURS!  YOU coordinate any efforts to
make it better, YOU organise moving discussions, YOU get up off your arse
and do the damn work!  

This is NOT my responsibility, but since you are demonstrating NOTHING to
make me think that you will do these things, even now when you are
protesting you aren't MIA, then I WILL do it.  I WILL find someone (3
someones so far in fact) who will take care of the package.  If I have to
(it looks like I don't, which is lucky, because my Debian time is severely
limited as it is) then I will take care of the package and adopt it myself.
If YOU really want to keep it, then YOU coordinate the fixes and the work.
If *I* have to do it and make the upload for the people who have offered to
fix this package, then I *WILL* put a new name in the Maintainer: field!

still irked,


Reply to: