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

Re: Filing bugs with upstream

On Thu, 2004-12-23 at 01:04 +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:43:51 -0800 (PST), Mike Mestnik
> <cheako911@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:40:42 -0600, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > > It's not as simple as saying that these people are "not willing to be a
> > > maintainer".  In my case, these were otherwise quite responsible
> > > maintainers who just didn't feel it was their responsibility to deal
> > > with upstream bugs.  So, like I said, we have some internal
> > > disagreements on this subject, and we don't have a solid policy that
> > > says what we're supposed to do with upstream bugs.
> > Let's get some things straight.
> > 1. Most upstreams has stated vary plainly that there software is NOT FIT
> > FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  I think this includes, but is not limited to,
> > being used in any way by Debian.
> > This would imply that the Debian community can ask nothing of them, YMMV.
> Most developers do not guarantee it's fit for anything.
> I don't think they claim/guarantee it's not fit for anything (or fit
> for nothing).

Heck, *all* software licenses say that.  And if it causes you to
lose your data, tough shit on that, too.

Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"All machines, no matter how complex, are considered to be based
on 6 simple elements: the lever, the pulley, the wheel and axle,
the screw, the wedge and the inclined plane."
Marilyn Vos Savant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: