Web lists-archives.com

Re: Bug#896806: systemd-resolved violates The Debian Free Software Guidelines

On Monday 30 April 2018 10:09:44 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:18:01PM +0300, Abdullah Ramazanoglu wrote:
> > AFAIK it is still there untouched in git sources, as originally
> > mentioned in the bug report
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896806
> >
> > That aside, the question of whether it will ever get fixed in
> > upstream or not, is of secondary importance. OTOH, the fact that
> > official Debian developers and maintainers adopted a stance of
> > neglecting users' privacy is of utmost importance.
> That is a rather serious charge to make and one which is not supported
> by the evidence in this matter. Without a doubt there are personality
> issues, misunderstandings, and miscommunications. However, accusations
> of malice should be made with the utmost of care or not at all.
> > I had taken Debian Social Contract and DFSG for granted for a long
> > time. This thing forced me to review my assumptions about Debian.
> In what way? Debian as a project is made up of ~1000 official
> developers and thousands more contributors enaged in a variety of
> different efforts. To expect perfect conformance and adherence is
> somewhat unreasonable. People make mistakes.
> It appears that the issue here (with systemd-resolved) is most likely
> an honest mistake or perhaps an oversight.  Had Martin (the reporter
> of the bug) ended his bug report with the sentence, "Unless all four
> conditions are true, the default Google DNS servers are not used." and
> left out the last few paragraphs, I suspect the reaction would have
> been somewhat different. The fact is, however, that the second half of
> the bug report is essentially a screed against Google, is focused
> entirely on the "wrongs" of Google, completely ignores the fact that
> Google makes a great deal of positive contribution to the community,
> and also ignores the fact that quite a number of past and present
> Debian developers work or have worked at Google.
> A far more effective approach would have been to include a patch to
> the Debian bug report that effected the desired change. Even better, a
> patch should have been submitted to upstream that added a configure or
> build option to disable the Google DNS servers. Then the Debian bug
> report could have a included a link to the proposed upstream patch.
> Speaking as someone who is involved in maintaining quite a few
> different packages, my preferences for making changes to a Debian
> package are odered like so:
> 1. New upstream release
> 2. Patch created from commit made to upstream source
> 3. Patch created from patch proposed to upstream project
> 4. Patch submitted to Debian BTS
> 5. Patch I have to conjure up myself
> 6. Somebody screaming at me that I need to fix something
> Additionally, as the level of inflamatory rhetoric in a bug report
> increases, the more difficult it is to get motivated to work on fixing
> it.
> Regards,
> -Roberto

You make an extremely valid point Roberto, and I shouldn't have to point 
out that each of us, including me and you, is inclined to walk away when 
the rhetoric gets inflamatory. So I'd say, like I say to a military 
veteran, thank you for your service, such thanks is well deserved.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>