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

Re: New package doesn't fix the problem in the old version

On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 04:20:43PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raf Czlonka writes ("Re: New package doesn't fix the problem in the old version"):
> > > There is a third possibility which is that the maintainer has made a
> > > judgement that this bug is not worth going to special effort to fix in
> > > the package.  Policy does not need to be involved.
> > 
> > My point is exactly that: "who makes the call?".
> The maintainer(s) of the package(s) in question.  If you disagree and
> care enough to escalate it, and you haven't managed to persuade the
> maintainer, then debian-devel is available to give a second opinion
> and if that's not sufficient for you, or doesn't reach consensus, the
> Technical Committee is available to make a formal determination.

To nitpick a bit, your third possibility mentioned that the fix is "not
worth", but there are at least two sub-cases there: (1) maintainer does
not want to spend *their own time* preparing the fix, but would gladly
accept patches from others and (2) the maintainer does not want the fix
to reach user machines (e.g. because they consider the fix might make
things worse).

Given Raf's interest in getting this particular issue fixed, I wonder
whether he has tried proposing a patch to the maintainer (there is no
trace of it in the buglog mentioned in this thread). Going that way can
be way more useful in actually improving the life of users affected by
the issue than this intriguing discussion about who *in theory* is
responsible of cleaning up old debris.

Share the code, we'll all be happier.
Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: