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

Re: sbuild package

> > > > > sbuild package is broken.
> > > > 
> > > > It can't be that broken - works for me here, and did so ever since I
> > > > first installed it.
> > > 
> > > Try to compile bash
> > 
> > Selecting a few packages does not make it so broken that one requests
> > its removal. If it would break on most of the package - removal would be
> > justified. If it fails on a few, that's a bug, a nasty one which should
> > be fixed in a timely manner. However, it does not make the package
> > completely broken, and is not a good reason enough to ask for its
> > removal (or to suggest doing so).
> It is broken if it has not been updated in 1.5 years, it was forked (and its
> fork is used in the buildds), the bash bug was known and solved in the forked
> branch (although no one ever filled a serious bug against it nor the changes
> made on the forked oneone were integrated in the code)

At least the bash bug should have been filed. It's pretty rude to bring
it up as an example without a bug being filed first (never mind its
known or not. I did not know about it, the maintainer might not follow
the relevant mailing list or IRC channel, etc), so at least it could
have been NMUd.

About changes not being integrated - as long as it works most of the
time, I don't really care. Those who do care, can help the maintainer by
offering co-maintainership or filing appopriate bugs.

> and the script which
> the documentation claims need to be used has an RC for 154 days.

That IS a problem, no question about that.

> The possible paths are:
> - take proper care of it

Or offer help to the maintainer if you're not statisfied with his work.

> - remove it and upload the version used in the buildds
>   (which is not a drop-in replacement)

That would hurt users, unless you provide a smooth upgrade path (which
should be provided, if one wants to preserve the quality of Debian and
its high esteemed upgradability).

> - hijack it

Before that, one can offer co-maintainership. Which is way more polite
and helpful.

> I never said it is completely broken. But it struck me that few people knew
> about the bash problems and i did not find a bug report about it and no one
> thought about a replacement.

Well, those who knew about the bug, should have filed a bugreport. And
there's no need to think about a replacement when the existing tool can
be fixed.

Reply to: