Package: toot Version: 0.27.0-1 Followup-For: Bug #1041373 X-Debbugs-Cc: debbug.1041...@sideload.33mail.com
> yet you wont receive any updates There are countless factors in determining the version that best serves any particular user. It is not for you to decide or control what version a user runs. When you suggest that users upgrade their whole system in order to run a more recent version of a social media app to overcome a trivial flaw, this is reckless advice. You need to understand that every package has dependencies. Those version dependencies either support or break other packages. Every dist upgrade results in gains /and losses/. You cannot competently prescribe arbitrarily to all users that they “chase the shiny” at all costs. It’s an absurdity to impose this on others most particularly when they are still running officially supported versions. > and instead you spam the debian bug tracking system with "reports" > that are just noise (like this one, since it's fixed upstream). You’ve misidentified the problem. The problem was not with the version I was running; it’s that I did not check the release notes first. Please re-read my message from the top. I admitted to that error which AFAIK only involves bug 1041373, not the others. Users can run a range of different officially supported versions and the Debian BTS is rightfully designed to accommodate this. > if i go in a bakery and scream "my chair broke, i want a new one!" > it serves no one purpose. The misunderstanding here is that you think I am an individual looking for personalized support. The bugs I have reported are *community* bugs. So the /fallacy of analogy/ here is that you say “my” chair broke, when in fact it’s a community resource that broke. By extension, community bug reports serve the community, not the individual. In fact the individual bug submitter finds workarounds because bugs are not fixed overnight and a Debian user won’t often see the change for years out. By the time the lifecycle of the bug runs its course, any benefit to the original submitter is marginal since their workaround or alternate workflow is already established. The beneficiaries of fixes are future users. > You need to submit the requests in the right place for the right > people to act on. The “right place” differs from one user to the next. It is walled gardens who decide who may enter, not users who decide whether a walled garden must serve them. Often there is no “right place” for a given user. Some bugs go entirely unreported because of obnoxious CAPTCHAs or surveillance capitalist MitMs. Yes it’s clear that you’re a gmail pawn but try not to view everyone through the “surveillance capitalism is fine for everyone” lens. That’s not for you to control. Users will contribute bug reports wherever they /can/. It’s rightfully their choice. Demanding that voluntary contributors bend to your needs is quite obnoxious. > yeah which you conveniently omitted to report the big `if` before > hand: "If you file a bug in Debian, don't send a copy to the upstream > software maintainers yourself" I simply pointed you to the whole document. How can that be an omission? The only omission I see is in your cherry picked requoting of the doc, which omitted: “If necessary, the maintainer of the package will forward the bug upstream.” > -- what we are telling you Speak for youself please. > is to NOT file these bugs at all in the debian bts, but directly > upstream. On what authority do you believe you can override the bug reporting procedure document? Clearly the policy you were shown gives contributors a choice. If you don’t like that, it’s on you to change it. This is not the appropriate place for that. > you dont like github? Github doesn’t like me either. Red herring nonetheless. Who likes who is irrelevent when the Debian procedure gives contributors a choice. > If i were the maintainer of this package, i'd bulk close all your > report and invalid and ask the BTS maintainer to temporarily ban you > from submitting more. Then you would be a reckless maintainer. Nothing is worse for quality than a bug suppressing emotionally hot-headed maintainer.
