Hi,
On mer 2010-08-18 @ 03-58-41 +0200, Didier Raboud wrote:
# On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:48:26 +0200, Nils Radtke <l...@think-future.de>
# wrote:
# > Hi,
# >
# > log msgs of this kind appear in dozens lately:
# >
# > [...]
# > Aug 18 14:05:00 localhost pppd[11035]: Failed to open /dev/ttyUSB0: No
# > such file or directory
# > [...]
# > Aug 18 14:05:00 localhost pppd[11035]: Failed to open /dev/ttyUSB1: No
# > such file or directory
# > [...]
# >
# > Trying usb-modeswitch 1.1.3-1
#
# Huh !? 1.1.3-* doesn't include your patch, nor upstream's. It will come in
# 1.1.4-1, which is expected in some days.
IRC there's been a partial patch, not addressing the port order stuff but the
multiple port stuff, irc.
# > Obviously upstream is free to accept and integrate submitted __tested__
# > patches. Or not.
# > Upstream may very well reimplement a patch on his own. Releasing them as
# > __untested__
# > is however not a kind gesture towards the user base and contributors,
# > who're again obviously
# > the main target.
# You haven't tested the version including the patch (might it be yours or
# upstream's) for your problem, so please check your facts before
# fingerpointing people.
Yes, we omitted the patch after I submitted a functional __tested__ patch and
got
a punch for asking too vividly whether it had been integrated at that time.
Then we decided to stick with our patched version (the patch above to the
respective
version). A bit later, irc, an update slipped through on my machine and I left
it
as it was. This should be the way it happened.
You're getting this wrong. This criticism wasn't directed on your behalf. I had
never the intend to offend you nor anyone else but point some things out
that upstream went berserk.
# > The submitted and __tested__ patch earlier in the list has been floating
# > around for months now,
# > without having been integrated and the users being without this required
# > functionality. This
# > is counterproductive and frustrating contributers. Integration would
# have
# > been easy at that time,
# > as obviously the patch had been created against the then actual code
# base
# > and been __tested__.
#
# I sent you a link to a package including this modificaiton, I never heard
# anything back.
Yes, see above. We sticked to the locally patched version for the time beeing.
Then I personally had been quite busy and lost track of the pending link/issue.
# > In the meantime users had to pin the related debian packages or to
# suffer
# > from malfunction and
# > the above log messages.
#
# I haven't heard any complaint about that, apart yours.
Yes, as I'm proxying these issues for our local user base.
# > It seems loudly that the main problem be a pebkac one.
# Please, pretty please, don't insult people; this doesn't serve your cause.
You're right.
# And be assured that I feel insulted and this doesn't make me willingful to
# include your patch.
You're wrong. Don't.
You explicitly stated not being willing to branch the package src applying
submitted patcheѕ but asking upstream for doing so.
Now that I'm writing these lines, I begin to understand why you probably felt
offended:
You read my messages as subtle request to apply the patch yourself. But this was
not intended. I just sought a way to publicly document this patch and the
applicable context. That's what I stated when posting the patch. At least was
the
intention.
# This bug will get closed with 1.1.4-1, you will be offered to re-open it
# if it doesn't fix it for you.
# OdyX
Thank you.
Cheers
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
