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

Re: xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Bill Unruh <unruh@physics.ubc.ca> writes:

> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Memnon Anon <gegendosenfleisch@gmail.com> writes:
>>> But, on the other hand, please do not try to stress that the debian
>>> fork is as good as Schillings. It is not necessary, the
>>> non-free argument is enough!
>> ACK. At this point the quality of the original and fork are completly
>> irrelevant and I hope more people do see that. In Debians eyes the
> No they are NOT irrelevant. For the users, that is the key. And surely it is
> the users ( the customers) who should be the prime consideration.
> I agree that legal issues are a concern, but they are almost always something
> that can be worked through.

What I'm getting at is that they MUST be worked through before any
choice can be made which side to keep. At the moment the only choice
for Debian is to use the fork. The original is legally not an option
no matter how much user would like to have it (if they do, I don't).

The "better quality" of the original might be an incentive to work
through the legal stuff but you have to work through it before you can
even think about replacng the fork with it again.

>> original is just undistributable and therefore the fork is the only
>> option, no matter how bad it is (and it works for me [tm]).
> Ah yes. I works for me, the hell with anyone else.

That's not what I'm saying. I just wanted to relativate the "no matter
how bad it is" because I don't see any of the suposed problems and
none have been reported in the BTS.

>>> To all the maintainers of the fork:
>>> I sincerely beg your pardon, if my impression is just wrong,
>>> and I really consider every work for debian important.
>>> This is my impression, and as this thread more and more
>>> circles around "bugs in wodim" etc., especially, since a posting,
>>> stating that wodim does _not_ work for everyone as fine,
>>> gets the "You sent no bugreport" answer (which is true!, but imho
>>> reflects the experience of a lot of people out there)
>>> , I wanted to share my impression.
>> I think the "You sent no bugreport" answere reflects some frustration
>> of the authors of the fork. It is verry frustrating to be torn down
>> for how bad the fork is without being given any hint in what way and
>> how it could be fixed.
> Sorry, that is how it works. He has reported a bug. Here. If what he says is
> right, namely it does not work with SCSI it is a bug which should have been
> caught before it ever went out the door

Will you buy the maintainer all kinds of scsi burners so they can test
each? I myself and several others have used debians cdrecord with scsi
just fine so the bug must be some quirk of that specific config. You
can never forsee all those quirks.

>> As such dear authors keep your spirits high. Your efforts are highly
>> valued and not wasted.
> Well, really they are. There is this piece of software which does everything
> they want it to do, and they are tinkering with an old version of that same
> software, trying to keep up, and not really wanting to do so.
>   This whole thing would be a farce if it were not a tragedy.
> Maybe it is impossible to bring Schilling and Debian together. Sometimes
> tragedies do occur, but that is where the efforts should go.

And here we have to disagree. I don't see Schilling moving one iota
from his position and trying to compromise with someone so set in
stone is just wasted.


Reply to: