[Mageia-dev] Security updates - Help needed (also forgot avidemux and gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg)

[Claire Robinson]

On 06/07/12 07:56, Oliver Burger wrote:
> Am 06.07.2012 08:18, schrieb AL13N:
>> Op donderdag 5 juli 2012 23:52:39 schreef Claire Robinson:
>>> With respect Nicolas, you're not on the receiving end.
>> [...]
>>
>> allthough i see badly worded(possibly to look offensive) sentences, i
>> don't
>> think this is intentional, and more a problem of communication than
>> something
>> else. I often have the feeling that certain sentences from french
>> people come
>> accross as rude to me. I've come to understand that this is not the
>> intention,
>> but somehow related to how french sentences are built and how it's been
>> translated to english.
>>
> The same thing was pointed out to me by a native speaker (as MrsB is),
> when I wrote an answer that somehow was rather rude to the receiver.
> We have to keep in mind, that most of us are non native speakers and
> that all of us have slightly different cultures.
> So - although it may be hard - it would be good for the native speakers
> among us, not to put every word through a rudeness detector. I know the
> Brits are far more courteous then the Germans (and perhaps the French as
> well?), so let's go back to fixing bugs and not feeling hurt by people
> who might not even be rude from their point of view...
>
> Oliver
>
>


This has nothing to do with being rude.

As I said previously, this is being blown wildly out of proportion. In 
reality it centres around one packager and two bugs. In both these bugs 
the packager expected QA to validate updates where one was an xinetd 
service which expressly stated it was disabled by default but in actual 
fact was enabled and in the other a mailing list with a web interface 
which simply couldn't work in it's default configuration.

What it being thrown at us is that we are unreasonably expecting every 
single little bug to be fixed without any common and need to make 
drastic changes to our policies.

We attended the packager meeting on Wednesday to respond to this and 
discuss it. At the meeting it was agreed that we had not changed the way 
we have been doing things since day one and that the right way forward 
was to continue doing what we were doing, with both packagers and QA 
using common sense.

The following day the same far fetched accusations are thrown at us 
again, now escalated to the ML, suggesting we caused a months delay and 
suggesting a solution to the accusation being we begin to 'rubber stamp' 
security updates regardless of if they actually work or not or an 
internet facing service which says it's disabled is actually not so.

In both cases there were simple ways to fix them. In one it was just to 
alter the description (2 minutes) so it didn't say it was disabled and 
in the other it was either to add a suggest or alter the default 
configuration so it didn't require the missing suggest (2 minutes).

We have to use common sense in QA and only ask that, to avoid all this 
unpleasantness in the future, common sense is used by the packager also. 
All this is a reaction to 4 minutes of additional work. That is not 
common sense to me.

If we're expected to validate updates in the state these two bugs 
reached us then we may as well not be here at all.

Claire