Richard wrote:
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
Richard, 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: <quote> Severity "Normal: It's a bug that should be fixed." </quote> 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 build service." 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 hike!" 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: We are... 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. We value... ... *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 www.rankinlawfirm.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org