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

Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Le dimanche 12 août 2007 à 09:34 +0000, William Pitcock a écrit :
> It's not our fault that Debian packaged an old, buggy, and generally speaking,
> broken version of Audacious with a bunch of backported patches that may or may
> not be fully compatible.

You should talk about this with the maintainer; this has nothing to do
with our processes. If that version was so buggy as not to be usable,
the maintainer should have prevented it from entering a stable release.

> It's not our fault that Debian still has not promoted our current stable
> offering to testing, which has many of these crash fix and design defect fix
> things you may have heard about.

1.3.2 has been in testing for more than a month.

> It's not our fault that Etch did not ship with 1.3. 1.3 had been out for a
> considerable amount of time when Etch shipped. 

I wonder what kind of crack you are on. Your website shows the 1.3.0
release date as being 2 march 2007. This was only one month before the
etch release, during the deep freeze phase.

If you think one month is a considerable amount of time, you have no
idea of what integrating a distribution means.

> Please don't claim that the most
> recent versions of audacious (as shipped and maintained by us) crashes every 2
> minutes because that's simply not true -- Debian Etch ships 1.2, and so does
> Lenny at this time.

Please check your facts.

: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: