Bug#554260: O: cabextract -- a program to extract Microsoft Cabinet files
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 13:40, Eric Sharkey <eric@lisaneric.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
>> So can you comment these bugs (only for cabextract):
>>
>> #528187 - quite easy to fix (it also has a patch); no reply
>> #451698 - 5 minutes to fix; no reply
>
> Yes, they're easy to fix. Should I fix them? Of course I should. Is
So do it! stop talking, start fixing them.
> it going to take 5 minutes to make the changes, test the packages,
> making sure that this command line application functions appropriately
> when called from a GUI. No, of course not.
Ok, let's say 2 hours? let's even say 4. Now, the KDE bug was file
2009-05-17, that makes about 6 months ago. You didn't find 4 hours in
6 months? Come on, you must be kidding.
Oh, #451698 was filed in 2007... that must be really really hard to
"make the changes, test the packages" for this bug, right?
> That's no excuse for having let it go this long,
You're only trying to find excuses, no technical reasons.
> but don't be ridiculous in your arguments.
If there's someone doing "ridiculous" things, well that's not me for sure...
>> #393828 - did you actually forward it upstream? where is the 'forwarded' tag?
>
> No, because it was unnecessary. Upstream was included in the original
> bug report by the submitter. You can see the comment from Stuart
> (upstream) in the bug report requesting additional information, which
> was not, to my knowledge, ever provided. The bug has an upstream tag.
Did you prod upstream to fix it? I doubt, too complex, right?
>>> This bug is completely inappropriate.
>>
>> if you *really* think that, close it with an upload. Else, what you do
>> is only talking, and we need packages in good shape.
>
> Your point is taken, but I'm closing this bug right now as it never
> should have been opened in the first place.
Oh sure, why not? you're doing so great up to now!
> If you want to take me to task for not fixing these exceedingly minor
> issues and claim that every little thing is important to giving
> Debian's overall polish, that's one thing. If you really think that
> these packages are in such bad state that they need to be orphaned,
> the polite thing to do would be to ask me to orphan them, and only if
I did orphan them, what can you infer from it?
> I don't respond within a specified time take over. The way you've
> done this is just rude.
Oh dear, I would give a hug and a kiss on the head you'd be here....
Now, when you'd like to stop your blablabla and actually take care of
your packages, we can talk again, if it won't happen... well who cares
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: