Re: Old libgmp2 problems (was Re: Why did you break my package!)
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 1999 at 04:37:22PM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Nov 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, first of all, I would like to point out that you have reduced this to
> > > a really ugly situation. Your initial email to me was condescending and
> > > completely out of line. That is the reason my replies have been somewhat
> > > cold in nature. That does not excuse your attitude, vulgar language, and
> > > downright shitty displacement.
> >
> > The whole thrust of my communication with you was that communicating with
> > the package maintainer is a must if the confusion around this particular
> > bug is to be avoided in the future.
>
> No, the whole thrust of your initial email (as noticable in your subject)
> was to accuse me of breaking your package. You stated time and time again,
Any time you do an NMU without notifying the maintainer, you have created
a potentially broken situation, reguardless of how technically correct the
patch you provide is.
Your insistance that this is all my fault because I ignored a previous NMU
not submitted as a bug report because no one had the courtesy of telling
me they had done so. The result is the same as would have happened with
your latest patch, had I not found out about it from other channels.
You _must_ communicate your intentions to the package maintainer if you
want those intentions to stick in the next release.
> that the problems that were in the bug report were _my_ fault. As you
> noted, they are not. You have yet to appologize for that accusation.
I never said the bug report was your fault. I only said that I would not
have discovered the NMU you made if it had not been for the "faulty" bug
report.
Until I had some time to look at what you had done, I had no idea what it
was!
>
> > The frustration you say in "vulgar" language was generated by your false
> > assumptions and your refusal to admit that it would have been a better
> > deal if you had talked with me before doing an NMU. I have never objected
> > to the technical content of the NMU.
>
> Port NMU's are not uncommon. The fact that I was led to believe that there
> was a bug report already filed is the only mistake I have made. Even if
> there wasn't a bug report filed, and I took the time to do one, I would
> have still NMU'd the package, simply because I can get it out faster than
> you. However, I would have only done a binary only NMU so as not to cause
I have no problem with someone doing an NMU as long as I have been
appraised of what is going on. You componded your original mistake by not
following standard operating proceedure and contacting the maintainer.
I take exception to your assertion that you "can get it out faster than" I
can. It is a three line fix to the rules file, which either one of us
could have implimented in about 20 minutes (at the outside).
Your failure to communicate this to me could very well have caused this
patch to be inadvertantly removed by the upload I had planned for last
weekend.
> recompile on other archs. You fail to realize that sometimes arch uploads
> need to supercede ordinary NMU practices since generally speaking, the
> maintainer does not have the ability (nor sometimes the knowledge) to fix
> problems on that arch. The normal protocol is as follows:
>
> 1) Do a binary only NMU with the proper fix
> 2) File a bug report with the patch to the BTS
>
> Now, since I was under the impression that #2 was already done, I did not
> follow through. Please forgive my complete failure on #2, I guess I should
> be perfect like you, and do everything correctly all the time. Sorry if
> I'm only human.
>
Well at least you seem to now understand what was wrong with what you did.
Do you also realise that because of those false assumptions your work
could very easily have been trashed again.
If you insist on keeping the package maintainers ignorant of the work you
are doing on their packages, I can't do anything about the fact that your
work is going to get trashed in the next release.
> > > This is on my sparc, using the package I NMU'd. The links are fine
> > > (although I think the nameing of the library is really fscked up, but
> > > that's beside the point). The bug report you refer to is not of the sparc
> > > arch upload I made. Now, after looking at the bug report, and your rules
> > > file, there is no way this was because of the current package. My only
> > > conclusion is a) ldconfig, or b) bad upgrade, from an older package.
> > >
> > As I told you earlier, the bug report is bogus, as the reporter failed to
> > install the libgmp2-dev package which supplies the links he was "missing".
> >
> > The only purpose served by this report was to let me know that there was
> > an NMU out there.
>
> a) Not installing the -dev package shouldn't have left a dangling symlink
> so I think there is still a bug in your packaging of libgmp2.
It would have left the symlinks from the previous -dev package with
pointed to a different library name, no longer supplied by the libgmp2
package.
> b) You should have investigated this before emailing me and accusing me of
> breaking your package. Your pettiness fueled the escalation factor of this
> problem.
>
Yes, I will admit that I should have had more time to shedule for this
problem, but I didn't, I still don't, and this discussion has taken up
much to much of my valuable time, not to mention your own.
I will simply say that, if you insist on making changes to my packages
without telling me about it, then you must also accept the fact that those
changes will most likely disapear on my next package upload. This is not
due to any malic on my part, it is simply the way such things work. If you
keep me out of the loop, you get what you get.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: