❦ 3 septembre 2016 21:22 CEST, Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> : >> The policy says "may not". I am not a native speaker, but for me, this >> is not like "must not". Since you are a native speaker, I think you know >> better: is it optional or not? > > May I suggest an alternative approach…? We have two cases here: > > a) Debian Policy states it is a bug in python-asyncssh. > > b) Debian Policy does not state it is a bug python-asyncssh. > > In both cases it would be perfectly legitimate to continue discussing > whether it *should* be a bug in python-asyncssh. > > In other words, tedious haggling over the wording and intention of a > document neither of us wrote is unproductive to the goal of improving > Debian. So, let's just skip all of that.
Well, what you think is productive/improvement, I think this is a waste of time. Let's say I disable the test. Next release, I will have to rebase the patch. Next release, upstream will have added a test, I don't notice it, you'll file another bug, another upload to fix that. Upstream may notice that I am crippling its test suite. I'll have to explain. They may or may not understand. I don't want to do all that. The time I can spend on Debian is limited. If your bug was wishlist, I would just ignore it. It is severity serious and I have to handle it. Maybe it is legitimate. Maybe not. That's why I would have feeled more comfortable if this was discussed on debian-devel@. -- There is a great discovery still to be made in Literature: that of paying literary men by the quantity they do NOT write.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature