>>>>> Jonathan Dowland <j...@debian.org> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 09:57:45PM +0000, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> 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)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You win the prize for the most Orwellian spelling of "untested and
> broken" that I've seen today. (so far.)
If this comment has some purpose conductive to free software
development, I’m afraid it has so far eluded me. (Though I
suppose I can be glad for you if you’ve found my wording amusing.)
> Whilst you wasted your time (and ours) on this side-show,
If reading my messages on debian-devel@ takes a non-trivial amount
of time for you, may I suggest that you filter them out?
As for the assessment of how productive my efforts are – please
don’t; I’m perfectly capable of doing that myself.
> the actual maintainer has actually fixed the dependency problem
> (a one line change in the control file)
From whence I’ve found it adequate to probe if an effort to fix
the apparent violation of Policy 9.11 (quoted below) would be
appreciated.
[…] However, any package integrating with other init systems must
also be backwards-compatible with sysvinit by providing a SysV-style
init script with the same name as and equivalent functionality to any
init-specific job, as this is the only start-up configuration method
guaranteed to be supported by all init implementations.
— http://debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#alternate-init-systems
--
FSF associate member #7257 http://am-1.org/~ivan/
