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

Re: more about Zookeeper



On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:49:51 +0200
Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just looked at this bug and it looks like a configuration error in
> the environment rather than a bug in Zookeeper per se.

Subsequent comments by Henrique show that this is not the case. I don't
care about the specifics of zookeeper myself.
 
> I am surprised that you didn't know about this since you seem to be
> otherwise knowledgable.

I did say I don't care about zookeeper specifically. The principle of
how RC bugs are handled is completely independent of the mechanics of
the bug itself.
 
> In any case, it is a bit strong language to blame code quality for a
> build system configuration error.

Quality code should detect that the build configuration is wrong
before the build itself actually fails. If the code requires a version
higher than one which is likely to already exist, quality code would
check that the old version is handled with a useful message. It
shouldn't require detailed knowledge of that package.
 
> Also, nobody seems to have contacted the actual project maintainers
> about this problem. Your comments about lack of motivation are also
> somewhat ad hominem (and incorrect).

It's simply that if the bug isn't fixed, the package will be removed.
I've said before, I don't care about the detail of this package. It's
up to those who do care to see about getting upstream involved,
whether that's the current maintainer or someone else if he doesn't
respond.

> > Irrespective of disagreements with the current maintainer, zookeeper is
> > not good enough for Debian stable simply because it has a separate
> > release-critical bug. #626020 - FTBFS on mips. There is no argument
> > about this - failing to build from source on a supported architecture
> > means, by definition, that the software is not of sufficient quality for
> > Debian. End of.
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=626020

That summary is still accurate.
 
> > As such, I would disagree strongly with the statement that ZK is not
> > of sufficient quality to be included in Debian.
> 
> > The RC bug argues differently and, in Debian, the RC bug is always more
> > persuasive than protests from interested parties who lack the time or
> > motivation to actually fix the problem.

This is a general point about other arguments where "interested
parties" are vocal but not able to actually change the issue itself.
Someone needs to actually fix the package, not just complain at those
who simply state the reality of how an RC bug will be handled if not
fixed. If no-one steps up, for reasons of motivation or whatever else,
then the package will be removed. It's quite simple really, the
package isn't good enough to be in Debian if this bug is left unfixed.
Someone fixes it, I'll be happy. Until then, protests without action
will make absolutely no difference.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpMThAQJystr.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: