Re: Outrageous Maintainer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Just some respoces: (There is several quotings from several people.)
1st the tecnical:
Josselin Mouette:
> As I understand the issue, I have to agree with the maintainer: the
> conflict statement should be added in the wxwidgets 2.5 packages, not
> the 2.4 ones. Adding it in the 2.4 packages is completely useless upon
> upgrades.
Goswin:
> No, as I read there first was 2.4 then 2.5 came and then the 2.4
> package got a new version uploaded after 2.5 causing the problem on
> upgrade.
>
> So 2.5 is broken for having a replaces without conflicts and for not
> coordinating an update with 2.4. And the new 2.4 is broken for not
> having a conflict to clean up the broken mess 2.5 creates.
The both packages are from the same maintainer and so also a
reassignment to the other package might be correct but minor use.
But... The wxpython2.5.3 and libwxgtk2.4-python_2.4.2.6 was coexisting
fine and only the update of libwxgtk2.4-python to version 2.4.2.6.1
triggers the bug. So maybe the version 2.5.3 have also bugs the
conflict was triggering from the libwxgtk2.4-python package and so the
bug is there. (As I understand)
That the wxpython2.5.3 will get removed soon does not help as 1st, some
people just have installed it and 2nd, there are other packages
depending on it (svn-workbench).
2nd the debian stuff:
There is many trust the users of debian (me included) have to the
maintainer creating (tecnical) clean, secure and good packages. Such
reactions from a maintainer do violent this trust. I for my person
cannot trust anymore him to make good packages and have to package it by
myself to fix all dependencies. Other users might not have this
background to do so. And think of it, they install the BINARY packages
created from you.
I also have no problemes fixing such bugs localy. But this do not solve
the bug; only the maintainer can do that. And, in this case, I was not
the first bugreporter of this bug.
3rd the human:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> As for you, Klaus, what were you thinking when you replied in a tone like
> that to someone that was obviously pretty much pissed off? Regardless of
> whether he should have replied to you in an insulting tone or not, you *did*
> ask for trouble. Let the matter drop, you are not helping.
I only whant to say somethink to this paragraph, the other only gets
into a mud war.
It is true that (in the last mail to him) I did not hold an objective
voice. And that was not helping. But, I was not the first submitter.
Ron did slight the original poster bevore several time until there came
no reaction from him. I firstely only wanted to strike that this bug is
realy a problem and not only one people has it.
In the further time Ron did mail me several mails not going over the bts
full of abusive language. I also request him to come back to objective
voice but he only answered with more slights.
I do not want to open the private discussion here. (Ron might do if he
want.) It will only end in mud war and do not help solving the problem.
At the final, I'm not good in swearing in english or doing non technical
conversation in english. I did several words in this mail (and in
others) by using a dictionary. But I do not think, the sentences are so
bad that they can missunderstud (applied to the bug report) as a
personal attack to Ron. There was no reason for me to fight him and my
only intention was to solve the bug in the way I describe above in point
2.
Regards
Klaus
- --
Klaus Ethgen http://www.ethgen.de/
pub 2048R/D1A4EDE5 2000-02-26 Klaus Ethgen <Klaus@Ethgen.de>
Fingerprint: D7 67 71 C4 99 A6 D4 FE EA 40 30 57 3C 88 26 2B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQnS/DZ+OKpjRpO3lAQJVNQf+LTBrK3UCZtbuP0MFPkDIeoYha9El0/+s
QlmeNcHcatwfH4145md7+NS0nnf9wkKBGzTxFc6aTPKcWPj4nGazTxqaB+K82UJf
REEVqqkt0SRcTbxnJ+rObjqzltOejtNujl9P5ZNi6ZNr0e2BCxAkS/ZxoyVX9+R4
cGnqeuXGLGvlktAaoCyIjaS4kE1vAddKtcA2LznJvPk/qsEOm0G2IW7s66VH9js8
JOyN3ftip+6K6R7FXllfKG03p45b8ZteUFr1YNVaNpLGNFkYWrYXNvQvqFDJ8QT7
3PdaeB8BmdfM+J6sOH7arYkDUEdqf0EbFCJ2r+Jnbfmq5pJWJLNVPQ==
=LvxM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: