Re: Quality advice : split `hwclock' from util-linux ?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 09:35:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:07:37PM +0100, Thierry Laronde écrivait:
> > Hello,
>
> Hi,
>
> > I have made a bit of cleaning in the BTS about the bugs open against
> > util-linux.
>
> With Vincent benediction ? Anyway if what you did is right then nobody
> will complain. :)
>
I hope so. I have, first, sent mails to him. After some days, without any
replies, I have considered that "no reply is agreement".
But I have limited myself to the obvious cases, and have explained the
decisions. Personnaly, I would make more cleaning, but the cases are less
"clear". So I let the maintainer do what he has to.
> > The problem is that 15 (>25%) bugs are against `hwclock' alone. The most
> > obvious lack is about documentation (we've been discuting this in the
> > `Scary bugs' thread).
> >
> > What is the Debian-QA advice about this ? IMHO, it would be more easy to
> > handle a small package, and to work hard on the documentation, than keeping
> > a lot of very useful and used utilities merged, increasing the bugs against
> > one package, and making hard for the maintainer to have a synthetic view of
> > the problem, when a lot of problems reported are not software problems, but
> > "user's" problems because of a missing documentation.
>
> No, the good solution is to provide a patch to the upstream maintainer
> in order to include better documentation in the upstream source, this will
> increase the quality for everybody not only Debian. For debian specific
> documentation I guess that Vincent welcomes patches ...
Well, I am working with Laurent Picouleau about the `time' problem. And I
think that we will able to supply some documentation for woody. At this
moment, we'll give this to Vincent, closing several bugs by the way.
Best regards,
--
Thierry LARONDE <thierry.laronde@polynum.com>
website : http://www.polynum.com
/home du SDF (Site Debian Francophone) : http://www.polynum.com/debian
Reply to: