>>>>> Vincent Bernat <ber...@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> ❦ 21 octobre 2018 18:12 GMT, Ivan Shmakov <i...@siamics.net>:
>>> so if you were an actual user, I would propose you file a bug
>>> report against the package to let the maintainer knows the
>>> dependency is too strong for your use (and maybe propose a patch to
>>> integrate with inetd).
>>> As you are not, please, do not. Our resources are scarce and we
>>> already cater for the need of many non-existent users.
>> You know, in almost twenty years of using GNU/Linux, I think it’s
>> the first time I’m requested /not/ to report bugs and contribute
>> patches. How times did change, indeed!
> Well, reporting bugs about software you don’t care or patches you
> don’t test is not always useful. For example, you clearly didn’t
> test your wrapper (shebang is #!/usr/sh) nor the init script
> (/lib/init/init-d-script is expecting the daemon to fork.)
Indeed; I even said that much in my posting. (Meanwhile, one
another issue I’ve found is that the wrapper lacks a trailing
‘exit 1’.)
AFAICT, the init.d script issue can be fixed by adding
START_ARGS=--background there.
> The maintainer would have to do the testing, possibly the immediate
> fixes and all the future maintenance. Just for you to make a point.
I disagree; to the best of my knowledge, anyone can do the
testing and suggest any fixes he or she deems necessary. As
such, having an issue recorded in the BTS is preferable to not
having it recorded, and having a (semi-correct) patch on file
is preferable to not having any patch at all.
If maintainer decides resolving the issue is not worth the
effort, the (wishlist) bug can stay in the BTS indefinitely.
The maintainer can as well make /that/ a point.
--
FSF associate member #7257 http://am-1.org/~ivan/
