Re: Breaking programs because a not yet implemented solution exists in theory
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 02:52:22PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Josselin did answer your question. To paraphrase my understanding of the
> answer: because he (they, probably, but he only spoke for himself) doesn't
> want to maintain those files because they duplicate information stored in
> another system that he considers superior for the purposes of what he's
> doing, their lack doesn't what he views as his primary target audience,
> and by removing them he forces people who care about the mailcap support
> to do the work of deriving that information from desktop files if they
> care enough to keep the system working.
OK, but in this case I think #658139 (and probably friends?) is
incorrectly handled. It should not be wishlist + wontfix because
packages are actually broken. If Josselin and others are regarding this
as sombody else's problem the bug should be rather reassigned to
somebody else's package - in this case perhaps general comes to mind
because it affects several packages. Josselin was expecting the
"general void" to solve the problem and thus the bug should rather go
there (by keeping important severity).
Alternatively it also could be reassigned to mime-support because other
broken packages are basically relying on this one. However simply
hiding a problem by decreasing severity is a strange way to handle
something and assuming it would force somebody else to work.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: