Re: [opensuse] Why Not Fix the Easy Bugs??
- From: "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:45:09 -0500
The OBS is part of the openSuSE structure, maintained by openSuSE.org, provided as a SERVICE and is a form of distribution, used (if we are to believe anything we read in these mail lists) to create the last distribution and presumably the upcoming release(s) and probably many of the included applications and other programs and libraries used by openSuSE and the versions of DE's like KDE and others. So when something breaks something in the OBS you are breaking support mechanism for already released versions that haven't even reached EOL yet.
This idea of "OFFICIAL" openSuSE updates is very nebulous at best. First, it is very ill defined. Second, it often breaks existing released code. Third, often the fix is 'WONTFIX' ostensibly because of lack of resources or interest or simple laziness.
Telling people to 'Stick with the older version of the package' is tantamount to saying "We know there are other bugs in our software that we will fix and release in the future, but you won't be able to use them because you took our advice and are stuck with the older (buggy) version of the package". Their only alternative is to upgrade....which some can't do because of hardware or in a lot of cases, incompatibility with applications that cannot or will not be upgradeable but required in their business or other activities. Thus, they are stuck with the bugs that are fixed but out of reach because they took your advice.
David is right, you could have spent much less time by making the simple fix he showed you instead of making excuses and lame advice.
I couldn't have said it better.
This excuse of "it's build service" doesn't wash at all. I know that's crap
from personal experience. I too have built packages for build service, and the
very instance when somebody had a bug report concerning my madwifi package,
Marcus personally forwarded the bug to me to handle and fix. Your code, your
bugs -- fix it.
If I'm required to fix bugs with the packages I build for build service, why
in the heck isn't Joachim Eibl required to fix his?
What makes this instance even more acute is the blatant admission that it was
due to a bleeping mistake of building the kde3 kdiif3 package against kde4 --
whoops! Fix-it! See: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488463
If you're man enough to build for build service, then you need to be man
enough to fix your bugs or pull your packages so they don't cause other
openSuSE users grief and wasted time -- period.
The text of bugzilla.novell currently reads:
Severity "Normal: It's a bug that should be fixed."
If all we are going to do is make excuses for why we won't fix things, then
the text needs to be changed to honestly read:
Severity "Normal: It's a bug that should be fixed but probably won't if it's
This entire scenario is evidence of a growing problem with the way bugs in
*anything* other than the most recent release are treated. With SuSE it did not
matter which current release the bug related to. As long as the release had
not reached EOL, it was approached with the attitude of "Well, let's see what
is going on here and see if we can get it fixed." With openSuSE, the new
mentality seems to be "it's Build Service, not "OFFICIAL" openSuSE, so take a
Loosely translated "If it's not the most recent release and the fix doesn't
directly impact upstream SLES or SLED, WON'T FIX." That is so contrary to
making sure the current releases are not broken by botched updates it defies
everything written in the openSuSE Guiding Principles, namely:
a project for everybody striving for an open free software distribution
that enables all computer users to reach their individual goals.
... focused on three main areas:
openSUSE Build Service
Free software is driven by diversity and engagement of individuals. This is
supported by the openSUSE Build Service.
We want to...
... create the best Linux distribution in the world, which has the largest user
community, and provide the primary source for getting free software.
... create a distribution which is stable, easy to use and a complete
multi-purpose distribution for users and developers, for desktop and server
use, for beginners and experienced users, for everybody.
... *quality* by striving for technically excellent solutions based on a solid
and transparent development process. We achieve that by focusing on providing
thorough solutions to problems, taking the needs of users seriously, and
maintaining stability through well-defined quality assurance processes.
... *our users*, their desires and goals, their need for help when encountering
problems and their support for our common project. We listen to our users and
focus on their needs throughout all our activities. We consider our users to be
part of our community.
IS ALL THIS JUST WINDOW DRESSING??
Why do we seem to constantly get back arguments regarding fixing simple things
that seem to violate the very core of what the community was promised when
novell gobbled up SuSE? I mean I like the guiding principles, I read them when
I was required to adopt them and, above all, this distribution would work if we
just kept them in mind and revisited them every once in a while.
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: [opensuse] Why Not Fix the Easy Bugs??
- From: Anders Johansson
- Re: [opensuse] Why Not Fix the Easy Bugs??
- Prev by Date: Re: [opensuse] Extracting a single file from an RPM
- Next by Date: Re: [opensuse] Why Not Fix the Easy Bugs??
- Previous by thread: Re: [opensuse] Why Not Fix the Easy Bugs??
- Next by thread: Re: [opensuse] Why Not Fix the Easy Bugs??