Re: Bug#117561: Proposition of solution to this problem [about doc-rfc]
Kai, I don't understand you at all and you don't answer the private mails
sent to you, so I'm gonna abuse this bug repport to try to discuss with you.
[with a CC on debian-qa so that other people can jump into the discussion]
You packaged the RFCs, which are a very important piece of informations, but
this package have a whole bunch of bugs (some of them RC) which could be so
easily fixed that your obstination to not fix them is ridiculus to me. You
spent much more time explaining why you don't want to fix them than it would
have take to actually fix them.
This situation comes to its paroxysm here, about the descriptions. Your
descriptions are enough if you know what a RFC is, but not if not. You seem
to agree on that too. But you claim that everybody have to know what a RFC
is. Ok, ok, everybody should. But what is the point of keeping this bug open
when a patch exists to fix it ? Saving a few bits in the Packages.gz ?
Come on...
I investigate this package, searching ways to make it usable (it is
uninstallable for now, see the RC bugs) and usefull since almost on year and
half because I do need it. You never answered to the comments I sent to the
bug reports until now, so I assumed that you were MIA (which is fine, debian
work is based on volunteering).
And now, you come back, sending ITP on other pieces of software, stating
again that you don't even want to fix the ridiculusly small problems.
I'm veeery disapointed.
Now, here is the situation: I have actually repackaged the RFC, using a lot
of the work you already made to categorize them. This new version solve
almost all the existing bugs, except the #92810, about the licence, since it
is beyong my capacity[0], and redo the split amongst package to make it
"more natural" (at least IMHO).
NMUing this package with my version was discussed a few times, with several
people (Joey Hess in 2002, Steve Langasek recently, and Pierre Machard now)
accepting to do the upload for me (since I'm not DD). None of them did it, I
guess that they were afraid by the conflicting situation you let reign about
the bugs against your packages.
So, my question is quite simple: What do you plan to *do* about those bugs
and packages? Could you please either officially orphan this package or
actually *fix* those bugs?
Thanks for your attention, Mt.
PS: My version is still available from
http://graal.ens-lyon.fr/~mquinson/deb.html#doc-rfc
[0]: I agree that this bug is a sad story, and declaring that the RFC are
not free is quite problematic, but the fact is that you cannot modify the
RFCs. I think that the solution would be to discuss with upstream to clarify
the licence, and get something like the latex licence, for example.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:25:43PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Moin Kai!
> Kai Henningsen schrieb am Saturday, den 21. June 2003:
>
> > tag 117561 wontfix
> > quit
>
> Fine. Let's archive it as an example for the maintainer arrogance.
>
> > > This bug report is one of the best example of incomprehension i've ever
> > > seen. I think that Eduard just wanted to point out that the descriptions
> > > would not help the newbies, and Kai answered that the description is good
> > > enough for normal administrators.
> >
> > That is an interesting view of what happened. Unfortunately, it does not
> > match reality.
> >
> > Look at the original bug report. Ed claimed that these packages had
>
> Yes, please look at it. It was not autogenerated, and read this:
> Subject: doc-rfc: useless package description
>
> > identical descriptions. He actually showed, in the exact same report,
> > that they were different.
>
> What is different? The numbers? Does the number describe the content?
> Yes, for an admin looking for it, but not for a user looking trough the
> package list.
>
> > In other words, the bug report was *clearly* bogus.
>
> NOT _clearly_. It was clearly for you since you did not made any effort
> to understand to what is written here. You saw only the words "same" and
> three similar line and made your opinion. Did you even try to understand
> the extended description from the point of someone else? You write about
> "other RFCs" and only about them in _every_ description. But how do the
> packages differ? Did you ever read the guidelines for package
> description writers?
>
> > After I pointed that out, he then desperately scrambled around trying to
> > find something *else* wrong about those descriptions.
>
> I have only one thing to anwer: Bullshit. I did not even rename the
> report, and you got a clear explanation of what made me file it.
>
> > Of course, that doesn't belong in this bug. It is a different bug
> > (assuming it is one at all, which I have serious trouble with).
> >
> > I never claimed anything about administrators, of course.
>
> No, you didn't, but someone else did trying to vindicate your position,
> or even trying to understand it after all.
>
> MfG,
> Eduard.
Reply to: