[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs bacula, bacula_client, bacula_client_(...)

[Philip Brown]

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Mon May 16 12:24:27 -0400 2011:
>
>> The issue here is not about dropping it from the catalog. Its
>> obsolete, I'm all for dropping it.
>
>> The problem here is that you are going BEYOND that, and forcibly
>> removing a package that a user may wish to keep, without delivering
>> them an automatic upgrade for it.
>
> Which is _exactly_ what an update of the last debian release to have
> the package to the first release that didn't have it would do.

sorry, I couldnt parse that sentence.

>  Again though, please
> waste _your_ time if you want to see it remain available.

I dont personally care about it "remaining available". I'm interested
in a solution that doesnt screw over users. If you have a different
solution that achieves that, please suggest it.
Otherwise, you're being rather hardheaded about avoiding a relatively
trivial amount of work, that you, the new "maintainer of bacula"
should be handling. The icing on the cake is that you only have to do
it once and never again.
you're really being inconsiderate to our users by refusing to do 10
minutes work, one time.


> I'll post to users@ to warn users of the change.  They're reasonable
> people.  They'll understand.  And if they don't want to update and
> lose the package, they can sit on the old version of the entire suite.

They dont get to DO that. "{pkg-get} update all" would blow it away.

And before you suggest "well we can implement making a pakage 'stick'
and not be upgraded", that makes a bad situation worse.


> This is ridiculous.

yes it is. it's ridiculous that you are refusing to do 10 minutes of
work to clean this up.



>> >> That is of course, presuming that they even COULD file a
>> >> bug. because once bacula_gnome is removed from the catalog, usual
>> >> practice is to disable the corresponding mantis areas also.
>> >
>> > Our users can't figure out how to file a bug?
>>
>> Please re-read that paragraph, slowly. It seems like you didnt
>> actually read it.
>
> In more words than I used last night, you're effectively saying that
> an intelligent person going to file a bug against bacula_gnome
> wouldn't (upon finding it missing) file the bug against bacula or
> bacula_client, etc.

Or, an intelligent person may just as likely conclude,
"great. They screwed things up,and screwed up normal means of
reporting it too. No point in filing a bug then, 'cause they wont
bother fixing this".

The attitude of "its not a problem unless a user files a bug" is a
customer-hostile one.