Packaging Committee Meeting Summary (2010-02-03)

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Fri Feb 5 01:26:47 UTC 2010

On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:26:22PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> No, my argument is that the problem this tries to protect against is
> purely cosmetic, and is cosmetic in an area which has little practical
> importance. That makes it very low in my priority scale. Nevertheless I
> would support the fix anyway if it was safe. But it is not safe, it's
> trading a problem which has no real practical consequences, for problems
> that do have practical consequences.
If you don't like it, talk to FESCo or write something up for FPC to look
at.  If you think that reviewers can't be bothered to look for places that
a package has a bug, packagers don't have time to fix bugs reported against
their packages, and you don't have enough faith that FESCo or the FPC will
find your argument that "cosmetic issues in an area which has little
practical importance" are valid, then really, there's nothing else I can do
to help.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the devel mailing list