On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:33:27 +0200 Andrew Shadura <bugzi...@tut.by> wrote:
> > If it is a bug in NetworkManager, then please show me where. > > auto eth0 > > #NetworkManager#iface eth0 ... > > is not a valid syntax. > > So when we have interfaces 'defined' like this, initscripts' hook > thinks we've got all 0 interfaces up so it can start. Of course, this > needs to be fixed so it won't even try to do so. But the source of the > problem is that NetworkManager was abusing a bug in ifupdown's parser. It would have been a lot easier for everyone if this had been mentioned in the original bug report - why was this not done? > I think that reassigning a bug to network-manager in a first place was > a clear enough message that something needs to be changed, so > reassigning it back multiple times isn't a good way of communication > either. This has been escalated to debian-devel precisely because that mere reassignment was *not* and was never going to be a sufficiently clear message for the network-manager maintainers to be able to triage the bug. ifupdown has lots of bugs, NM has lots of bugs - there's no excuse for not providing information which would help fix the bugs. If the ifupdown maintainers had some idea of why the original bug was down to a package abusing a bug in the parser then just putting those 6 words into the message alongside the reassignment would have saved a lot of aggravation and started the process of getting this bug fixed. It doesn't have to be proven, just a hint that it could be related to a bug fix in the parser would have been a start. All this reassignment ping-pong - which is just as idiotic as severity ping-pong - could have been avoided if the original bug report had had a follow up message about this parser bug being fixed and your suspicions that network-manager and possibly other tools were abusing it. If you think a bug fix in your package has (correctly) prevented other tools from abusing the bug then, as the maintainer of the package providing the parser bug fix, it *is* your responsibility to mention this fact in bug reports which could be related to this change and to do so before the bug report is re-assigned. "This sounds like your package is abusing a bug in our parser which was fixed for bug #" - is that so much work that you didn't have time to type it in the comment of the original re-assignment? That knowledge must be shared with the other team - as early as possible and certainly without requiring an escalation to -devel. Co-operation is the core of free software - if some maintainers can't be bothered to help their fellow maintainers by adding a sentence to a bug report, those maintainers are doing it wrong. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpIPyH0xpmIs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
