ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[Daniel Letzeisen <dtl131@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 06/14/2014 10:43 AM, Christopher M. Penalver wrote:

> The support is based on that, as when one installs the Desktop ISO, it
> installs the userspace that is now unsupported.

False.

"Additionally, the security team publishes a list of 5 year supported 
packages[1] found at their FAQ[2]. Any package in that list is supported 
and if there is a regression in that package due to a security update it 
should be fixed. Subsequently, the distinction between a Server and a 
Desktop seems rather moot, ***the support is provided on a per package 
basis not installation type.***
-- Brian Murray, https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bugcontrol/msg04110.html


> First, it's considered rude when you haven't given me a chance to
> respond yet, and are still marking bugs a duplicate of 1327300:
I considered it rude when you undid my work (twice) without making an 
attempt to tell me you disagree.
> Second, this is support for Lucid Server on a per package basis, not
> Lucid Desktop. That link doesn't trump
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases it sets the expectations in a more
> granular fashion.
False. See above quote...

> Third, let's review each bug report you marked a duplicate on a line
> item basis specifically to clarify the support they are looking for
They've reported a lot of symptoms in packages that aren't supported? So 
what? The root cause is still the botched kernel. I know you think 
you're doing these people a favor by just telling them to upgrade, but 
you are flat-out lying (by omission) to them if you don't tell them that 
their problem was caused by the -61 kernel update, can be easily worked 
around, and has a pending fix.

> > > In fact, some of the people I've communicated with in the forums about this issue explicitly said they knew Lucid Desktop was no longer supported (but still ran it for one reason or another).
> Not terribly relevant to this discussion.

It's extremely relevant since you keep insisting that I'm "encouraging" 
people to run Lucid by telling them the truth.


> The fact it happened to break Lucid Desktop userspace, while that would be unfortunate, doesn't entitle
> them to support now
You're grasping at straws now. Marking bugs as duplicate of the actual 
bug isn't "support" any more than marking a bug Won't Fix and 
copy/pasting a response.

> Deceiving would imply malicious intent, which wouldn't be the case here.
Yes, 'confusing' would have been a better word choice there.


> Please leave the condescending attitude off the mailing list.
You first.