10 Apr
2009
10 Apr
'09
19:06
Richard wrote: > On Fri April 10 2009 2:23:18 pm Anders Johansson wrote: >> On Friday 10 April 2009 19:54:02 David C. Rankin wrote: >>> Listmates, >>> >>> I'm a bit troubled by the current "Sweep the bug under the rug" philosophy >>> I am seeing all too often with bugzilla. Latest example is: >>> >>> https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488463 >>> >>> Why not fix the easy ones? The point/question being, "What justifies >>> leaving openSuSE broken when the fix is simple?" >>> >>> It has always been "attention to detail" that has set SuSE/openSuSE apart, >>> why change course? >> 1. That is the build service, not openSUSE. >> 2. It's not a bug. The developer ported his package to KDE4 >> 3. You did not get that package through online update. Online update is for >> official patches, not build service packages. You got it from the build >> service >> 4. You have the answer already, the newer versions are for kde4, so if you >> want to use kde3, you need to keep using the older version of the package. >> Whatever you may think, SUSE developers cannot backport all new packages that >> are written for kde4 to kde3. >> >> So stick with the older version of the package >> >> Anders > > Bull-Hockey > > 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. > > > > Richard > What Richard said. Besides, David did an update which BROKE his application. Why offer an upgrade that is broken, and then suggest on a mailing list that he should have stayed with the prior release? Why offer broken updates at all? Especially when the bugzilla report notified the dev that there was breakage, and the answer was won't fix. If you won't fix it then remove then have the courtesy to remove the broken package. Leaving it there to break other users installations is no better than malware. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org