Ron wrote: > I mean really, people who can't figure out how to fix this for themselves > really shouldn't be using m-a on sid, or sid, at all. People who think > sending hundreds of *insistent me-toos* about transition issues in a > development release is the way to fix things *ought to have a good think* > about what this word *'unstable'* means and how software development works.
> [...] to *real software developers* in favour of people with unrealistic > expectations [...] > [...] the people *actually doing work*. > The people who expect others to do it for them will just have to be patient, > or *smarter* about what release they use, or both. > [...] it will possibly encourage more people who *shouldn't be using sid* > and/or sid+m-a, to keep using it, etc. etc ... > > Which is a good part of the reason I haven't done this double work either. > > If the me-too storm proved anything at all, it was that enough people already > *didn't get it* without doing even more work to *breed more of them*. If it > wasn't for that I might have considered doing this more seriously. > [..] people who do have fairly *reasonable expectations* to meet. Emphasis is mine. Please don't be disrespectful of users running jessie/testing and... testing it for bugs, and reporting them. About jessie: Of the people including such information, I saw one who appeared to run sid, the other 5 seemed to run jessie. So you're using a hyperbole stating all these people shouldn't be running sid, and making this better-than-thou remark that people should know the meaning of the word 'unstable'. Let me remind you of article 4 of the Debian Social Contract: > Our priorities are our users and free software > > We will be guided by *the needs of our users* and the free software > community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will > support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of > computing environments. We will *not object to non-free works* that are > intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a fee to people > who create or use such works. We will allow others to create distributions > containing both the Debian system and other works, without any fee from us. > In furtherance of these goals, we will provide an integrated system of > high-quality materials with no legal restrictions that would prevent such > uses of the system. Again, emphasis mine. The bug was reported in May 2012. In July 2013, *more than a year later*, you wrote a very short reply why you were not acting, but not taking the effort to really explain it any further. The reason remains rather unclear at that moment. Other than that, you pretty much said nothing until now. And now you're disrespectful of the people who keep trying to get this under your attention? They're nagging, when they keep raising the issue because the maintainer simply does not respond to the bug report? You might have done more if it weren't that you're encouraging these annoying Debian users? I understand you're looking at this from a different perspective than I am, but I find your condescending tone very inappropriate. Especially the breeding remark; users are not cattle, and *you* are most definitely not the farmer owning said cattle. I also think the remark about "people actually doing work" in particular is offensive and highly unwanted. Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
