On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 21:04 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Ok, so given that this is a closed source application, if upstream > won't cooperate on something as simple as this, why do you expect them > to cooperate with you on bugs or security issues?
That's not the issue here. The issue here is whether the QA team is entitled to be requesting the removal of packages in this specific instance. There are never any guarantees that any UPSTREAM will co-operate with us on bugs or security issues. If we can't live with the issues, and we can't fix them, the packages get dropped. I've no problem with that. > | Everything else is up for discussion. I think it's unreasonable to > | say that I'm refusing to work with you. > > You're repeatedly closing off the bug rather than suggesting > alternative ways of fixing the issue. I think, in this specific case, there are better things to spend the time on. I don't have a queue of users telling me that the way we handle this today is a problem. There's no evidence that, in this specific case, there is a problem out in the real world. > There's been one possibility > mentioned in this thread already, but it can't go anywhere unless > someone with an affected package (which is you) is prepared to go to > the Portage team with a justification. Hang on a moment. It's not clear to me why I must go to the Portage team for a change, when it's the QA team demanding change? As the QA team wants the change, why don't you go to the Portage team and ask them to implement DEST_PREFIX? Because (quite rightly) you'd rather the Portage team did other things too. > See Daniel's post in the thread. The council has already agreed that QA > has authority. Daniel also said that the QA team was supposed to be coming back to the council with more information. > | The issue at hand is that the QA team is, in this case, repeatedly > | asking for something it doesn't have the authority to insist on. I > | also think you're being unreasonable in this specific case. > > We're asking you to work with us in fixing a tree breakage. That's our > goal here. We can't do this if you just go around closing off bugs and > refusing to cooperate. Please stop spreading FUD, and libelling my name here. Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ http://blog.stuartherbert.com/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
