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

Re: Bug#354674: What on earth?

On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 04:31:10PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 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)

This is being rectified, as a perfunctory glance at -x will tell you.

>  - 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.

This is being rectified.

>  - 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 ?

This is being rectified, obviously, but I'm sure the people doing the
packaging appreciate your slight at their skills.

> 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.

So, let me get this straight: on one hand you're complaining about bugs,
and on the other hand, you're complaining about bugs being fixed?  The
workload of the XSF members getting things fixed is very admirable.

> 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.

Thanks a lot for your help.  

David has posted a couple of messages on debian-devel-announce
discussing the transition (including xlibs-dev), and what it means for
everyone.  Most of the transition was co-ordinated in excruciating
detail, including a long time in experimental where testing failed to
uncover these sorts of problems.

The rest are purely transitive.  You don't need a plan to tell you that
fonts are being migrated, that Build-Depends are being added as they're
being caught, or that the /usr/X11R6/bin situation is nearly totally
fixed.  This is unstable.  Sometimes the name rings true.

With regards the .la files: mea culpa.  I was partially unaware of the
full extent of the damage, and partially unaware that the release team
considered it such a problem.

If you really don't like it, wait a few days until the transition blows
over and the coast is clear.  It's one of the biggest transitions Debian
has had, and sometimes the problems aren't always clear.  (Hence the
delay in experimental, waiting for testers.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: