Re: Bug#444514: marked as done (gpredict: FTBFS: error: 'GtkTooltips' undeclared)
On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 01:05:32PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> wdg-html-validator‽
Forget it. Must have made something wrong when calling your link,
> I'm pointing you to the messages in the buglog of the gpredict package,
> so that you stop lacking context.
Well. I don't understand that...
> > And as far as I see the maintainer of gpredict is pretty active, so
> > the idea to orphan this package and hijack it seems a bit odd.
>
> Did I ever say that? I NMU'd grig, fullstop. And again, I didn't NMU
> gpredict.
.. with knowledge of that. But that does not matter, because I said that I
don't argue about what you've done or said, but:
> > That wasn't critism at you, but at Charles for his idea to hijack a
> > somewhaat okay maintained package.
>
> I had several things to write, and answering to your mail seemed more
> relevant than to Charles'.
Yeah, but you always forget to see *my* sentences in the context of my
statement stated above. It was not meant as a critism at you, so I haven't
checked the context, because I does not care. But it seemed as if gpredit were
on topic (because of the subjects, the bug reports, etc.) because i did not
study the backlog in detail AND Charles was the one who talked about just
orphaning and adopting.
So to make it clear: I don't have any critisims about what you've done and I
never had any!
> You might have forgotten you wrote:
> > But also if he wasn't a DD there is no reason to ignore the processes
> > meant to be used. […]
No, i haven't forgotten, but...
> And I'm defending that I followed that process, since this particular
> case is being debated again and again.
... again: You don't need to defend anything, because I never attacked *you*. And thats also why it does not matter in this case.
> Then someone has to take care of the package… You might want to bug the
> devref so that it mentions it is better to send both a personal mail and
> a mail to the buglog. I wrote to the bug as always, because it gets
> archived and because of the publicity.
You are right. I've misread the devref, so it is just my opinion, that one
should try to contact the maintainer additionaly to the bts entry by a mail
directed towards him.
> If an “FTBFS” thread is to be overseen, then it looks like clear
> that time is lacking, and that someone has to fix the bugs, but YMMV.
You are right. It might mean that time is lacking and to NMU and helpout is
okay if contact to the maintainer were made. I was not argueing about this,
except that I think it would be good to contact maintainer directly by mail and
that I find Charles proposed behaviour inappropriate.
> Again, I didn't say anything about adopting or orphaning. Or I can't
> read the mails I already sent.
Hehe. No: The problem was that you seem not to be able to read _my_ emails.
> <[🔎] 20071015134253.GA7469@maggie.lan> looked alike, hence my defense.
Well, the mail you are talking about where In-Reply-To:
<[🔎] 20071015113626.GD13651@kunpuu.plessy.org> -- the mail from Charles.
> And that's my last mail to this thread, since I'm “irritating you a
> bit”.
Well, now things are more clearer, so actually talking about something where
somebody is irritated is probably the best we can do.
Best Regards,
Patrick
Reply to: