Oh hello, how nice of you all to be concerned for my mental health. Fortunately, I am relatively content with my general state of mind. I do however have some thoughts on this bug:
* Six words and a link is not a valid upstream bug report. Its super lovely that you're over here chatting about me, but you really do need to provide a meaningful report upstream if you expect a donation of my time to make a change you desire. This is especially true given this code isn't a focus of my attention and hasn't been for most of this century. * Perhaps you could "sell" your request a bit better as well? "pointless" and "Any idea what to do if the upstream maintainer is clearly not that well" are perhaps not a great way to get me to do a thing for you? * Additionally, I also don't think you've demonstrated that this is in fact a bug, either on the debian bug tracker or the upstream bug tracker. Why do you think its erroneous? The resolution of the image is in fact not specified. Certainly I think the previous behaviour was worse [1], and given I am the one who gets to merge things surely that counts for something? Additionally, its super weird that you'd assume the use of a modern coding assistant implies some sort of professional incompetence on my part, especially when the commit as linked above is pretty clear cut. * The output is also trivial to work around if you don't like it. Just grep it away or whatever in whatever script you're wrapping pnginfo in. I will consider a pull request on its merits when one is uploaded to github. Michael 1: https://github.com/mikalstill/pngtools/commit/b765d38baef047c7edd335aa9187f5b4278cecaa
