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

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

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Josip Rodin wrote:

> Sorry but the system doesn't work that way. You are perfectly free to say
> "you don't care about my bug, you suck!", but that by itself is rather
> unlikely to actually improve the situation.

There are currently 4 dpkg bugs I'm interested in. None of them had any
worthwile comments so far from the developers. This one is 3.5 years old,
the other ones are approx. 9 months old. (These other ones were reported
by me. The fix is either trivial or created and attached by me or both.)
So it seems to me that there's absolutely nothing I can do to improve the
situation. If you believe there's anything I can do, please let me know.

The only thing that makes me believe that it's worthful to submit bug
reports or patches to dpkg is that I see that bugreport of other packages
are maintained far better. I do hope that it'll change for dpkg, too.

> It has happened before that someone found intentions of IWJ's code dubious.
> It has also happened before that someone reverted the code to suit one's own
> intentions. It has also happened before that the new code did not predict
> a different set of circumstances and broke.
> [...]

You're right. I cannot guarantee that my patch is 100% perfect. This is
why I'd like to hear the developers' opinion on this issue. All I can say
is that so far it seems to have no side effects, seems to work right, only
improves dpkg and doesn't introduce new bugs. As soon as I catch a bug
that's introduced my patch I'll add a mark to this bugreport.

> Oh and as far as caring for bugs goes, having to prioritize 678 bug reports
> (and counting) is non-trivial.

Yes, I perfectly agree. This is non-trivial. But, you know, there are
several systems whose developers manage to solve non-trivial issues,
manage to not only prioritize but even solve 678 bugs during 3.5 years.
I chose one of these systems for myself, i.e. not debian. That's it.

Reply to: