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

Bug#58106: dpkg: Lists old (incorrect) section in package database

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Koblinger Egmont wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Has it occured to you that the one who did it isn't watching the bugs,
> Yes, it has. Maybe he's no longer a debian developer. Maybe he doesn't
> even work with computers. There are a lot of possibilities. Hence I didn't
> want to blame him (I don't even know who he is), and if I could be
> misunderstood, then I do apologize. I don't want to hurt any particular
> person or blame anyone. All the nasty things I said was meant to go to the
> quality of work of the whole team as a team and organization, not as
> individuals. And believe me I wouldn't have written this if this was the
> first time I was very disappointed in dpkg's development.

This is really a minor issue.  Not many people care about what dpkg thinks the
section and priority of a package are.

> > and that nobody else knows?
> I didn't know either.

Well, I did know about the problem, and knew how to fix it.  I've known how to
fix it for well over a year(maybe even 2).  I hadn't, however, because I
didn't know the reason why it was done as such in the past.

> I spent some time to catch this bug. Not very much time, and definitely a
> dpkg-developer would need even much shorter time. I simply can't believe
> that the debian team couldn't have spent this much time on this bug in the
> last 3.5 years. I'm sure that the question is not whether they can fix the
> bug or not, and not whether they have time to do it or not. The question
> is whether they care about it or not. The answer is trivial. That's why
> I'm so disappointed.

A lot of bugs on core packages are easy to fix, per se, but aren't fixed,
because of some backwards-compatibilty reason/excuse.  This is one of those

Also, since dpkg is currently being rewritten, it's best to address such items

ps: The new dpkg isn't far enough along for others to work on it yet.  But it
is progressing rapidly.

Reply to: