PAM default configuration bug
I recently submitted the following detailed bug report on an issue with the default PAM configuration https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1209741 Whenever I submit a bug report I always try to include the appropriate people for the bug report using in this case osc maintainer pam But then when I create the bug report and try to add accounts that are listed by that to the CC List, often they don't match anything and therefore are not added. I have found this to be the case quiet often. Is this a known issue with osc maintainer information being outdated? What is the best method for making sure the correct people are notified about the bug? Thank you! -- Regards, Joe
On Sunday 2023-03-26 21:12, Joe Salmeri wrote:
Whenever I submit a bug report I always try to include the appropriate people for the bug report using in this case
osc maintainer pam
But then when I create the bug report and try to add accounts that are listed by that to the CC List, often they don't match anything and therefore are not added.
`osc maintainer` lists usernames. Bugzilla wants email addresses. Use `osc whois`.
Am 26. März 2023 21:31:25 MESZ schrieb Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de>:
On Sunday 2023-03-26 21:12, Joe Salmeri wrote:
Whenever I submit a bug report I always try to include the appropriate people for the bug report using in this case
osc maintainer pam
But then when I create the bug report and try to add accounts that are listed by that to the CC List, often they don't match anything and therefore are not added.
`osc maintainer` lists usernames. Bugzilla wants email addresses.
Use `osc whois
osc maintainer -e
`osc maintainer` lists usernames. Bugzilla wants email addresses.
Use `osc whois osc maintainer -e
Thanks Jan and Axel that was a big help! I had tried putting @<domainname> on the usernames figuring they were just shortcutting in osc and it sometimes worked but now I see that emails are not always username@domain. They would have been if I set it up 😄
On Sun, Mar 26, Joe Salmeri wrote:
I recently submitted the following detailed bug report on an issue with the default PAM configuration
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1209741
Whenever I submit a bug report I always try to include the appropriate people for the bug report using in this case
osc maintainer pam
It is really a bad idea to add many random people who have nothing to do with the problem, but not including the one for which this bug is relevant. The correct way to handle it: assign it to KDE, because it looks like a sddm configuration problem.
What is the best method for making sure the correct people are notified about the bug?
Not by adding random people to that bug :( Create a bug, select the _correct_ _component_ (so KDE) and let the people do their job. About your bug: you added 7 people and a mailing list, but the relevant people are still missing... Don't make wrong assumptions and assign it to the wrong components. That's the best way to make sure that the correct people will NEVER see this bug. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect, Future Technologies SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany Managing Director: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
On 3/27/23 02:31, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
It is really a bad idea to add many random people who have nothing to do with the problem, but not including the one for which this bug is relevant.
The correct way to handle it: assign it to KDE, because it looks like a sddm configuration problem.
I did NOT add random people to the bug. Since it was a problem with a PAM configuration file, I ran osc to find out who the PAM people were and I added those people to the bug. How exactly is the typical end user supposed to determine that KDE was the correct component ? A LARGE percentage of the time when submitting bug reports, the component or area that I want to assign a bug to is NOT in the list. Everyone is NOT intimately familiar with every piece of software to know which items belong in the various categories when they are NOT in the component list. I'll bet a large number of bug reports submitted are NOT anywhere near as detailed OR clear as the bug report I submitted. Most developers would be extremely grateful if all the bug reports they received were as well written and debugged as what I submitted.
What is the best method for making sure the correct people are notified about the bug? Not by adding random people to that bug :(
Create a bug, select the _correct_ _component_ (so KDE) and let the people do their job.
About your bug: you added 7 people and a mailing list, but the relevant people are still missing...
Providing misleading statements indicating that I just added random people to the bug is also NOT a very good method for addressing a bug. The logic for why I added those people is quite easy to follow and understand why I came to the conclusion that they were the best ones to notify. So instead of LYING and saying I added random people and completely IGNORING why they were really added, how about providing useful information, like how to determine what component to assign a bug to when you don't see the component in the list of available options? Now THAT would be REAL USEFUL!
Don't make wrong assumptions and assign it to the wrong components. That's the best way to make sure that the correct people will NEVER see this bug.
Are you this RUDE and disrespectful to everyone you respond to because I have CERTAINLY noticed a pattern over the years. Maybe people would do a better job of assigning bug reports to the correct component if you actually HELPED them instead of being so combative Regards, Joe
On 3/27/23 02:31, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
It is really a bad idea to add many random people who have nothing to do with the problem, but not including the one for which this bug is relevant.
The correct way to handle it: assign it to KDE, because it looks like a sddm configuration problem.
Looking at the bug I originally assigned to the Security component. PAM is security related and so is SDDM. And since in my bug report appears I found a long standing bug with the pam configuration for SDDM I even included the bugowner of SDDM in the list. So your claim of "random people" is completely inaccurate. I changed the bug to "KDE WorkSpace (Plasma)" but that seems much less appropriate to me. ocs doesn't even know about KDE or "KDE WorkSpace (Plasma)" So instead of complaining about it being assigned to the wrong place, how about you fix the tools provided so that they actually make it easy to determine where to put something when the component is NOT in the list and make the osc tool actually know about the components that are in the list? THAT would be MUCH more USEFUL!
On 2023-03-28 18:15, Joe Salmeri wrote:
On 3/27/23 02:31, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
It is really a bad idea to add many random people who have nothing to do with the problem, but not including the one for which this bug is relevant.
The correct way to handle it: assign it to KDE, because it looks like a sddm configuration problem.
I did NOT add random people to the bug.
Since it was a problem with a PAM configuration file, I ran osc to find out who the PAM people were and I added those people to the bug.
How exactly is the typical end user supposed to determine that KDE was the correct component ?
A LARGE percentage of the time when submitting bug reports, the component or area that I want to assign a bug to is NOT in the list.
Everyone is NOT intimately familiar with every piece of software to know which items belong in the various categories when they are NOT in the component list.
We just set the component to "other", and let the triage people figure it out. Which is an extra step, granted. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
Hi Carlos,
We just set the component to "other", and let the triage people figure it out.
Which is an extra step, granted.
In this case assigning it to Security seemed quite appropriate to me since it is a problem that occurs during the login process with the keyring setup by the PAM / SDDM configuration. I can certain assign to Other if that is what is recommended, but IMHO, that just creates extra work for people that don't need to be involved. Regards, Joe
On 2023-03-28 18:48, Joe Salmeri wrote:
Hi Carlos,
We just set the component to "other", and let the triage people figure it out.
Which is an extra step, granted.
In this case assigning it to Security seemed quite appropriate to me since it is a problem that occurs during the login process with the keyring setup by the PAM / SDDM configuration.
I can certain assign to Other if that is what is recommended, but IMHO, that just creates extra work for people that don't need to be involved. I would have used Security, and not add anyone.
osc is not something everybody can use. It has to be installed, it needs an account, AFAIK, and it is prone to getting it wrong. So I don't. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from Elesar, using openSUSE Leap 15.4)
On Tue, Mar 28, Joe Salmeri wrote:
On 3/27/23 02:31, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
It is really a bad idea to add many random people who have nothing to do with the problem, but not including the one for which this bug is relevant.
The correct way to handle it: assign it to KDE, because it looks like a sddm configuration problem.
I did NOT add random people to the bug.
You did, and I can prove that, since you added me ;)
Since it was a problem with a PAM configuration file, I ran osc to find out who the PAM people were and I added those people to the bug.
Again, your list did contain many random peole who have nothing to do with PAM anymore, maybe in the past. What you wanted to achieve is, that somebody is looking at your bug with high priority immeaditly. But with your action, what you have achieved, is more people get more for them useless bug reports and as result more people ignore bugzilla notifications. So exactly the opposite of what you wanted to achieve.
How exactly is the typical end user supposed to determine that KDE was the correct component ?
You had this problem with KDE, so you select KDE.
A LARGE percentage of the time when submitting bug reports, the component or area that I want to assign a bug to is NOT in the list.
That's why there are components like "Basesystem", "other", or "KDE".
Everyone is NOT intimately familiar with every piece of software to know which items belong in the various categories when they are NOT in the component list.
Absolut correct. And why do you then add random people if you don't know if they are responsible?
I'll bet a large number of bug reports submitted are NOT anywhere near as detailed OR clear as the bug report I submitted.
This has nothing to do with adding random people to bug reports.
Most developers would be extremely grateful if all the bug reports they received were as well written and debugged as what I submitted.
This has nothing to do with adding random people to bug reports.
What is the best method for making sure the correct people are notified about the bug? Not by adding random people to that bug :(
Create a bug, select the _correct_ _component_ (so KDE) and let the people do their job.
About your bug: you added 7 people and a mailing list, but the relevant people are still missing...
Providing misleading statements indicating that I just added random people to the bug is also NOT a very good method for addressing a bug.
But you did add random people to the bug! The statement is not misleading. How can you claim that you did not add random people to the bug if the people you add tell you the opposite?
The logic for why I added those people is quite easy to follow and understand why I came to the conclusion that they were the best ones to notify.
And I tell you that your logic was wrong.
So instead of LYING and saying I added random people and completely IGNORING why they were really added, how about providing useful information, like how to determine what component to assign a bug to when you don't see the component in the list of available options?
I'm not LYING! Calm down, read again and think about what you did! Doing a mistake and then claiming that the people making you aware of that mistake are lying is really very, very bad habit!!!
Now THAT would be REAL USEFUL!
Don't make wrong assumptions and assign it to the wrong components. That's the best way to make sure that the correct people will NEVER see this bug.
Are you this RUDE and disrespectful to everyone you respond to because I have CERTAINLY noticed a pattern over the years.
Maybe people would do a better job of assigning bug reports to the correct component if you actually HELPED them instead of being so combative
We are not speaking about compontents, but that you did add random people to a bug report! Don't always try to distract from your mistake! Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect, Future Technologies SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany Managing Director: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
On 3/29/23 02:38, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, Joe Salmeri wrote:
On 3/27/23 02:31, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
It is really a bad idea to add many random people who have nothing to do with the problem, but not including the one for which this bug is relevant.
The correct way to handle it: assign it to KDE, because it looks like a sddm configuration problem. I did NOT add random people to the bug. You did, and I can prove that, since you added me ;)
Still combative I see. Ok, fine.... I can PROVE stuff too and I don't LIE. YES, I did add YOU and I explained why. Since you seem to IGNORE facts, let's review them. The problem is with a PAM configuration file, let's see what osc reports for owners and maintainers.... ocs maintainer -e pam returns Defined in package: Linux-PAM/pam bugowner of pam : valentin.lefebvre@suse.com maintainer of pam : josef.moellers@suse.com Defined in project: Linux-PAM bugowner of pam : - maintainer of pam : mc@suse.com, kukuk@suse.com, wolfgang.engel@suse.com, -, valentin.lefebvre@suse.com, - And kubuk@suse.com is YOU! Therefore, YOU were NOT randomly added YOU were added because ocs maintainer lists YOU as a maintainer! So once AGAIN, YOU are LYING and spreading FALSE and MISLEADING information.
Since it was a problem with a PAM configuration file, I ran osc to find out who the PAM people were and I added those people to the bug. Again, your list did contain many random peole who have nothing to do with PAM anymore, maybe in the past.
If ocs reports WRONG information, that is not on me, I trust your tools to provide the correct information, otherwise what good are they?
What you wanted to achieve is, that somebody is looking at your bug with high priority immeaditly. But with your action, what you have achieved, is more people get more for them useless bug reports and as result more people ignore bugzilla notifications. So exactly the opposite of what you wanted to achieve.
Ok, let's see if that is true or if YOU are LYING yet again and spreading FALSE information. Here's the list of people that I added ckornacker@suse.com Listed as of PAM ( when osc maintainer used with -e option ) fabian@ritter-vogt.de Listed as maintainer of sddm jmscdba@gmail.com me josef@moeller@suse.com Listed as maintainer of pam kukuk@suse.com Listed as maintainer of pam mc@suse.com Listed as maintainer of pam mkountny@suse.com NOT added by me, they were added by fabian because he wants more information systemd-maintainers@suse.de NOT added by me, they were added by fabian because he wants more information valentine@lefebvre@suse.com Listed as bug owner of pam and maintainer of pam wolfgang.engel@suse.com Listed as maintainer of pam So once AGAIN, YOU are LYING because every SINGLE person that I added are listed as either a PAM bug owner OR a PAM maintainer.
How exactly is the typical end user supposed to determine that KDE was the correct component ? You had this problem with KDE, so you select KDE.
No I had this problem with the PAM configuration which is Security related. KDE works perfectly and has NO problems. More LIES and false information.
A LARGE percentage of the time when submitting bug reports, the component or area that I want to assign a bug to is NOT in the list. That's why there are components like "Basesystem", "other", or "KDE".
Well since the bug is Security related, I picked Security since that seems like the most appropriate Component. So you suggest I add the bug and specify a component which is so broad and general and so that even more people have to review and get involved which are not even related to the actual problem area??? Seems to me that what you are suggesting is exactly what you are complaining about
Everyone is NOT intimately familiar with every piece of software to know which items belong in the various categories when they are NOT in the component list. Absolut correct. And why do you then add random people if you don't know if they are responsible?
Still LYING I see. I have already PROVED beyond an doubt that I did NOT add ANY random people, I only added people involved with bugs and maintaining PAM. Seriously, why do you keep LYING and making FALSE accusations?
I'll bet a large number of bug reports submitted are NOT anywhere near as detailed OR clear as the bug report I submitted. This has nothing to do with adding random people to bug reports.
No matter how many times you CONTINUE to LIE it does not magically make it become true. I have already exposed your LIE but you continue to tell it
Most developers would be extremely grateful if all the bug reports they received were as well written and debugged as what I submitted. This has nothing to do with adding random people to bug reports.
Wow, seems that you must be a serial LIAR.
What is the best method for making sure the correct people are notified about the bug? Not by adding random people to that bug :(
Your pants must be on fire with all these LIES.
Create a bug, select the _correct_ _component_ (so KDE) and let the people do their job.
About your bug: you added 7 people and a mailing list, but the relevant people are still missing... Providing misleading statements indicating that I just added random people to the bug is also NOT a very good method for addressing a bug. But you did add random people to the bug! The statement is not misleading.
How can you claim that you did not add random people to the bug if the people you add tell you the opposite?
Because I already PROVED that I did not add random people I only added people what are listed as the bug owner or maintainer of the PAM modules. NOBODY was RANDOM. Still LYING I see and making claims which have been PROVED to be false.
The logic for why I added those people is quite easy to follow and understand why I came to the conclusion that they were the best ones to notify. And I tell you that your logic was wrong.
Well considering how much you LIE, that statement lacks ANY credibility. Considering people that have worked with me over the last 35+ years, they will tell you that I don't LiE and that my logic is generally well thought out and correct many more times than it is wrong. The bug report history also PROVES that you are WRONG because the EXACT people that *I* added debugged the problem and found the source to be with the systemd PAM configuration. In FACT, ( you should try using FACTS in your discussions ) upstream already made the change that they found MISSING from the PAM config in TW "ages ago" ( their statement ). Since you are a maintainer of PAM maybe you should spend more time keeping the product up to date instead of wasting so much time spreading LIES and FALSE information. Making matters WORSE, I changed the problem to KDE because of YOUR bitching and we ended up sending a bunch of emails to people wasting their time because they didn't need to be involved at all. So who really caused a bunch of people that did NOT need to be involved getting emailed? YOU did!!! by telling me to change it to KDE which has NOTHING to do with the real problem.
So instead of LYING and saying I added random people and completely IGNORING why they were really added, how about providing useful information, like how to determine what component to assign a bug to when you don't see the component in the list of available options? I'm not LYING! Calm down, read again and think about what you did!
So now you LIE about LYING ? To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to your own facts" You ARE LYING because you keep saying I added RANDOM people and I have already proven that I only added PAM bug owners and maintainers who are the EXACT people that needed to be involved and also the EXACT people that debugged and will end up fixing the problem. The facts stand! Name ONE person that is NOT a bug owner or maintainer of PAM that I added as reported by osc? Just ONE ( despite your claim I added lots of random people ) You can't, because there are NONE, but I'll bet your next reply will continue to LIE and claim I added RANDOM people
Doing a mistake and then claiming that the people making you aware of that mistake are lying is really very, very bad habit!!!
Yes, you should listen to YOURSELF because YOU made a big mistake and then YOU continue to REPEATABLY LIE about it! You need to calm down and learn to read and understand the FACTS which completely DISPROVE your FALSE claims.
Now THAT would be REAL USEFUL!
Don't make wrong assumptions and assign it to the wrong components. That's the best way to make sure that the correct people will NEVER see this bug. Are you this RUDE and disrespectful to everyone you respond to because I have CERTAINLY noticed a pattern over the years.
Maybe people would do a better job of assigning bug reports to the correct component if you actually HELPED them instead of being so combative We are not speaking about compontents, but that you did add random people to a bug report!
Don't always try to distract from your mistake!
Thorsten
Seems like you subscribe to the theory that if you tell a LIE enough times people will start to believe it. Your REPEATED LIES are YOUR attempt to distract from YOUR mistake and YOUR suggestion which actually creates the problem you are complaining about. I prefer to live in a world where the FACTS are what matters. -- Regards, Joe
On 29/03/2023 17.02, Joe Salmeri wrote:
[...]
The problem is with a PAM configuration file, let's see what osc reports for owners and maintainers....
ocs maintainer -e pam returns
Defined in package: Linux-PAM/pam bugowner of pam : valentin...
And that's the only person to add to a bugreport as that person is assigned to do the first investigation and will add others. General guidance: assign it to the correct component and the default owner will take care of it. If you use osc then just assign the single bugowner, nobody else needed. I've deleted the rest of the text, please all calm down and stop this kind of discussion, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj@suse.com Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstr.146, D 90461 Nürnberg (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman GPG fingerprint = EF18 1673 38C4 A372 86B1 E699 5294 24A3 FF91 2ACB
On Wed, Mar 29, Joe Salmeri wrote:
Since you seem to IGNORE facts, let's review them.
The problem is with a PAM configuration file, let's see what osc reports for owners and maintainers....
ocs maintainer -e pam returns
Defined in package: Linux-PAM/pam bugowner of pam : valentin.lefebvre@suse.com
maintainer of pam : josef.moellers@suse.com
Defined in project: Linux-PAM bugowner of pam : -
maintainer of pam : mc@suse.com, kukuk@suse.com, wolfgang.engel@suse.com, -, valentin.lefebvre@suse.com, -
And kubuk@suse.com is YOU! Therefore, YOU were NOT randomly added YOU were added because ocs maintainer lists YOU as a maintainer!
No, you did read the output wrong. I'm maintainer of the devel project like the rest of the last line not mentioned above as bugowner or maintainer, not of "pam". The last line alone is a little bit misleading if you ignore the "Defined in project: Linux-PAM" above.
So once AGAIN, YOU are LYING and spreading FALSE and MISLEADING information.
You proved above that I'm not lying and that I'm not a maintainer of pam, now I'm expecting an excuse from you for your wrong claim I'm lying. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect, Future Technologies SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, 90461 Nuernberg, Germany Managing Director: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
On 3/29/23 12:00, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, Joe Salmeri wrote:
Since you seem to IGNORE facts, let's review them.
The problem is with a PAM configuration file, let's see what osc reports for owners and maintainers....
ocs maintainer -e pam returns
Defined in package: Linux-PAM/pam bugowner of pam : valentin.lefebvre@suse.com
maintainer of pam : josef.moellers@suse.com
Defined in project: Linux-PAM bugowner of pam : -
maintainer of pam : mc@suse.com, kukuk@suse.com, wolfgang.engel@suse.com, -, valentin.lefebvre@suse.com, -
And kubuk@suse.com is YOU! Therefore, YOU were NOT randomly added YOU were added because ocs maintainer lists YOU as a maintainer! No, you did read the output wrong. I'm maintainer of the devel project like the rest of the last line not mentioned above as bugowner or maintainer, not of "pam". The last line alone is a little bit misleading if you ignore the "Defined in project: Linux-PAM" above.
So once AGAIN, YOU are LYING and spreading FALSE and MISLEADING information. You proved above that I'm not lying and that I'm not a maintainer of pam, now I'm expecting an excuse from you for your wrong claim I'm lying.
You CLAIMED numerous times that I added RANDOM people to the bug. That is a LIE and that is a FACT as I ONLY added people that were listed in the lines which say bug owner or maintainer. Your name is CLEARLY in the list of "maintainer of pam" You are also listed in the PAM manuals as one of the authors. Yes, I did PROVE you lied because I did NOT add RANDOM people. If you are NOT a maintainer of PAM then I suggest you remove yourself from the LIST which INCLUDES you. There is NO excuse from me as it is a FACT that you are listed on the maintainer of PAM list. I did not expect you to apologize for YOUR MISTAKE because you don't seem like that kind of person to own up to your mistakes. You have WASTED so many peoples time with your LIES and FALSE claims and I am DONE with you.
Hi Joe, On 29.03.23 18:35, Joe Salmeri wrote:
On 3/29/23 12:00, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, Joe Salmeri wrote:
Since you seem to IGNORE facts, let's review them.
The problem is with a PAM configuration file, let's see what osc reports for owners and maintainers....
ocs maintainer -e pam returns
Defined in package: Linux-PAM/pam bugowner of pam : valentin.lefebvre@suse.com
This
maintainer of pam : josef.moellers@suse.com
and this is the information you want.
Defined in project: Linux-PAM bugowner of pam : -
maintainer of pam : mc@suse.com, kukuk@suse.com, wolfgang.engel@suse.com, -, valentin.lefebvre@suse.com, -
Project maintainers also inherit the "rights" to a package, but they do not magically become responsible for all package in a project.
And kubuk@suse.com is YOU! Therefore, YOU were NOT randomly added YOU were added because ocs maintainer lists YOU as a maintainer! No, you did read the output wrong. I'm maintainer of the devel project like the rest of the last line not mentioned above as bugowner or maintainer, not of "pam". The last line alone is a little bit misleading if you ignore the "Defined in project: Linux-PAM" above.
So once AGAIN, YOU are LYING and spreading FALSE and MISLEADING information. You proved above that I'm not lying and that I'm not a maintainer of pam, now I'm expecting an excuse from you for your wrong claim I'm lying.
You CLAIMED numerous times that I added RANDOM people to the bug.
Well, maybe there is a language barrier about the interpretation of the word "random". Fact is, you added people to the bug who are not responsible for the package.
That is a LIE and that is a FACT as I ONLY added people that were listed in the lines which say bug owner or maintainer.
Your name is CLEARLY in the list of "maintainer of pam"
No, Thorsten is maintainer of the project, not the package.
You are also listed in the PAM manuals as one of the authors.
Probably from many years ago.
Yes, I did PROVE you lied because I did NOT add RANDOM people.
I don't think this tone will further your cause.
If you are NOT a maintainer of PAM then I suggest you remove yourself from the LIST which INCLUDES you.
If it was me, I'd immediately do that and stop maintaining the other packages in the project, too. Example: I am listed as a maintainer in the hardware project. I am maintaining exactly 0 (ZERO) packages in that project. $ osc maintainer wpa_supplicant Defined in package: hardware/wpa_supplicant bugowner of wpa_supplicant : cfconrad, kbabioch maintainer of wpa_supplicant : kbabioch, cfconrad Defined in project: hardware bugowner of wpa_supplicant : - maintainer of wpa_supplicant : lrupp, elvigia, seife, hreinecke, trenn, duwe, seilerphilipp, a_faerber, tsaupe, michals, group:factory-maintainers So *IF* you add me to a wpa_supplicant bugreport, this will help nobody. I probably cannot do anything about the problem and the real maintainer might never know.
There is NO excuse from me as it is a FACT that you are listed on the maintainer of PAM list.
He is listed as maintainer of the project, not the package. There are probably other packages in the project. Even if there are none, many projects have people listed as maintainers in an administrative fashion: they are just there to give other people package maintenance rights, or to create new packages to be maintained by other people.
I did not expect you to apologize for YOUR MISTAKE because you don't seem like that kind of person to own up to your mistakes.
You have WASTED so many peoples time with your LIES and FALSE claims and I am DONE with you.
It would really be nice if the thread could end now. This tone is IMHO not acceptable. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
On 29.03.23 at 18:55 Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:
It would really be nice if the thread could end now.
Yes, please! Kind Regards, Johannes -- Johannes Kastl Linux Consultant & Trainer Tel.: +49 (0) 151 2372 5802 Mail: kastl@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537
participants (8)
-
Andreas Jaeger -
Axel Braun -
Carlos E. R. -
Jan Engelhardt -
Joe Salmeri -
Johannes Kastl -
Stefan Seyfried -
Thorsten Kukuk