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

Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?



Le Ven 14 Avril 2006 01:58, David Nusinow a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 07:09:55PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > *Think* for a moment about the consequences.  This is not a simple
> > rebuild, this is a serious problem.
>
> I agree and I take full responsibility for the issue. I'm sorry for
> the trouble. I'm fully willing to put back the .la files on request
> from the release team, who I should definitely have coordinated with
> beforehand. Note that I would have done so if I'd realized the
> magnitude of the problem, and not doing so was entirely my error.
>
>  - David Nusinow

I welcome the fact that you bear your responsabilities, that's a quality 
fewer of us have. Though, the .la problem is not the sole one the 
modular Xorg raised.

 - /usr/X11R6/bin/X disapearing broke login managers (gdm, kdm)
 - fonts transition was unanounced and users have either :
    * only non transitionned fonts if their xorg.conf was modified
    * only xorg ones if they use dexconf
   that's a mess.
 - a lot of build depends were missing, something that the first build
   on autobuilders revealed, which makes me wonder if the XSF knows
   about pbuilder and friends ?

Well, knowing to apology is good, but knowing how to prepare a 
transition is also needed. I just can quote steve on this :

 » So far I'm very unimpressed with the resultant bug count from the
 » Xorg 7 transition.

I can predict that the Xorg 7.0 will be the messiest debian will have to 
face in years, because everything is done in a hurry, and that each new 
uploads adds as many bugs (if not twice as many) as it solves.

So maybe it's now time to calm down the upload rate (yeah unstable is 
broken, but it's too late for that anyway, and after all it's not 
called unstable for nothing), let's have some communication to have it 
fixed, instead of pile of clumsy patches.

Could please the XSF communicate, and announce what that damn transition 
implies for *everybody*, instead of letting anybody finds out that 
their package is broken. I suggest [1] as a very good template for what 
communicating about a transition means.

best regards,

 [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00001.html
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpWLSwAfQgeS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: