> 3) incompatible VOC files: upstream denies that there is a problem here. > also i agree with upstream that the error message is pretty clear: > "Error in VOC file, incompatible VOC sections" doesn't say "your VOC > file is broken" but instead "it is incompatible with my notion of VOC > files due to some issue with sections";
No, that's not what it says. It tries to shift the blame, instead of at least saying something like: "Sorry, we don't support your VOC files." (And now I reread my original report and see I suggested this back then already, even with more detailed analysis. So apparently you/upstream don't care about this, so I think it's best to remove VOC support completely from the library.) > in the future, please try report each issue in a separate bug, so they > can be closed independently. I guess in the future I won't bother to report bugs at all. I mean, honestly, after almost 3 years you come and close one bug (incorrectly IMHO), forward another one (that I did report separately, #761240) and still ignore two more (#760898 and #761307). Of course, I didn't get to wait quite as long, so I've worked around libsndfile long ago (for Ogg/Vorbis I use libvorbisfile, for WAV I wrote a simple parser myself, and for VOC I call avconv as a subprocess, which apparently has a better "notion of VOC files"). So I don't really care about those bugs anymore. For my sake, close them all as wontfix. At least I got a new mail signature out of this ... -- "Error in Debian bug database, incompatible notion of bugs!" (#772874)
