Re: Changing the default syslogd (again...)
On 24 May 2006, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña verbalised:
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 09:52:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Actually, from personal experience, bugs are not fixed because the
>>> maintainer is against all NMUs, even those that follow the steps
>>> described in the sysklogd's source 'debian/NMU-Disclaimer'. The
>>> current maintainer's handling of bugs and suggestions to NMU for
>>> this package discourages people to either NMU or help him
>>> integrate patches included by other distributions (like Red Hat /
>>> Fedora) into the version in Debian.
>> Since we periodically have bug squash parties, and NMU's for long
>> standing bugs ought to be permissible (use N-day delayed uploads if
>> one wants to be extra careful), this should not be an issue.
> The maintainer explicitly says that those are not an option, quoting
> from the file I mentioned:
> " These rules always apply. They even apply if somebody declares
> NMUs as ok and reduces regular NMU rules to a delay of zero days.
> Unless I'm on vacation or on a show I am reachable via mail, so
> there is hardly a reason not to contact me. "
I would not really be paying much attention to what the
developer thought by this point: the quality of the distribution, and
the impact of the bugs on the users would probably trump the
Look, this is simple: Bugs bad. Bug fixing good. No magtter
who it is doing the fixing.
> The maintainer, at some point during a private conversation, even
> discouraged me to upload to *experimental* a new version of sysklogd
> fixing the issues I have prepared. That's why they ended up in my
> p.d.o page (they are not there anymore BTW).
And you are putting the maintainers exhortations above the
quality of the distribution and users impacted by these bugs? Why is
Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you. C.G. Jung
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C