> To fix such an issue, nobody in the world will agree to you to "fix" this in the Build-Depends field.
Using additional build-depends to workaround such issues is common but let's not discuss that. Does the issue break any official build in jaunty or does it break some builder service you try to set? > You fix issues in jaunty-updates, which are of much less priority or severity of this bug. Your hint to "pressed CDs" and "frozen archives" - shall I really comment these arguments? Let's agree to disagree on the priority on the issue there, it's not user visible for anybody running jaunty, it's not breaking any official builds and people hacking on softwares can workaround the issue. Could you explain why you think it's a blocker issue you can't workaround or give some details on your usecase? > which can be easily tested (even by your own). Right but the process is such that stable update needs to be validated by a team charged of testing those and that work has a cost, you could argue that the process is too strict but it has been set this way based on issue which happened before > And disagreeing with you is not a violation of any code of conduct. The disagreement is not an issue, the "WTF? Are you kidding me?" is one > Closing a report that is clearly about Jaunty with a hint to the unreleased Karmis is stupid and/or insulting. That's how the bug tracker is working and how bugs are handled in most project in opensource. The bug has been fixed in the current unstable version so it's closed, a jaunty task can be opened though if we want to consider to apply the change to jaunty, do you think it's not a correct workflow and why? Why should this bug still be opened for karmic if it's fixed there? > You can decide for your own, what you would think. Karmic is not (yet) relevant for *any* production system. And for the software (bluefish 1.3), for which I build packages for Ubuntu users, it won't even become this year, beacuse I cannot expect every user to switch in a short time period after a new release. Who said it is? You just seem to fail to understand that stable distribution have different tasks and that a jaunty fix would require a jaunty task there... -- libgucharmap-dev misses dependency on libgconf2-dev https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/436944 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
