Re:Making Debian Responsible For Its Actions
by heresy on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @06:42AM
(#1735223)
It's clear we disagree.
The author put something out there under a free license, Debian benefits by including it in the distribution.
There is no onus on the author whatsoever.
People bitch because it's always Debian from which these problems originate.
Mac OS X - Fine. FreeBSD - Fine. RedHat/CentOS - Fine. SuSE - Fine. Debian - Commands missing, functionality disabled, misconfigured.
Re:Making Debian Responsible For Its Actions
by davidw on Tuesday September 28, 2010 @06:45AM
(#1735228)
The author put mongrel out there under a free license, as well as some unnamed gem, and various other things. The gem is not included in Debian. As to the "benefits" of Debian including anything, they certainly aren't pecuniary, but accrue mostly to the end users (or not, in this case). So, if you help Debian fix something, the beneficiaries are ultimately all the users of Debian, not really 'Debian' itself.
> Mac OS X - Fine. FreeBSD - Fine. RedHat/CentOS - Fine. SuSE - Fine.
Any sufficiently complex system, including every one of the above, has problems. They may differ from Debian's in type, nature and even quantity, but they exist. Including missing commands, disabled functionality, and misconfiguration.
Because he cares about the bug being fixed, rather than just whining? The point is to focus on fixing the system, not on pointing fingers or telling eachother to fuck off.
The maintainer most likely already had the ruby-ssl package, and so the 'cursory test' worked for him.
Look, I don't think the rubygems package on Debian is a fantastic bit of work, but ultimately:
It's free software. If you don't like it, either help fix it or don't use it. Point it out if you like, but don't be such a dick about it.