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

Re: A way _not_ to handle bugs

severity 306015 important

On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:27:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> first of all, if you downgrade a bug only a good hour after I upgraded 
> it, it would be nice if you would:
> - Cc me
> - send a better explanation than "This is not a missing dependency, feh"

If you are going to upgrade bugs to RC severity without talking to the
maintainers first, it would be nice if you would be right.

> In my testing, e.g. php4 from woody together with php4-mysql from sid is 
> _not_ a working combination.

$ apt-cache show php4-mysql
Package: php4-mysql
Version: 4:4.3.10-12
Depends: Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libmysqlclient12, debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, phpapi-20020918, php4-common (= 4:4.3.10-12)

php4-mysql does not depend on php4 because the php4 package is *not*
required to be installed in order for php4-mysql to be usable: installing
any of the packages that provide phpapi-20020918 is sufficient to give you
a php4 engine that can be used with php4-mysql.  php4-mysql does not depend
on any particular package providing the interface, because it has no way of
knowing which one the user wants.

The actual bug you're describing, therefore, is that the package
relationships do not prevent you from having multiple PHP engines
co-installed on your system that each provide different extension ABIs.
This is a well-known bug that's irritating but not release-critical, and
fixing it in sarge would not be at all straightforward.

But that isn't even the problem the original submitter was reporting!  The
original submitter reported a problem with "undefined symbol: php_sprintf",
which has *nothing* to do with the php4 package!  IIRC, the last time this
error was reported it was a problem with bad caching from third-party
accelerators, not a PHP bug at all; in *no* event could it be caused by a
partial upgrade from woody.

I knew this as a co-maintainer, and you didn't, and I shouldn't have to
explain all this to you just to avoid having bug severities inflated when I
could be doing something more productive with my time (and you with yours),
like fixing real RC bugs.

> Please either explain why "this is not a missing dependency" or promise 
> to be a little more careful in the future instead of blindly downgrading 
> bugs.

Please be a little more careful in the future instead of blindly upgrading

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: