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

Fri Jul 6 10:03:45 CEST 2012

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
+