On Thursday 09 December 2004 10:12, Harry Hoffman wrote: > how is it a bug if it's documented behavior? Do the authors expect it to > happen that way? Not all bugs are coding errors. Poor and poor interpretation of specs also are bugs. Take my tourist pics we've just been discussing. The requirements would have said "we will provide this housing -- on the canal foreshores, these boating facilities," and so on. The specs then laid out the canals to be dug, the groynes to protect the entrance etc. The pollution along the beach and the stink of the rotting weed and the erosion around the village are, in software terms, bugs. The top of the western groyne comprises ironstone boulders, a metre and more across. This too is a bug, even if signposted as hazardous, because people will go out to fish along there. So the spec was wrong. In the case of using mksisofs, which people will see as a copying, changing the source is not expected behaviour, and for some users it will be hard to work around. And there are people who, like me, will use Chris Kloiber's script for remastering (or creating) RHL/FC DVD images and not even see the documentation. On my FC3 machine I could potentially adapt Chris's script to remaster an 11 Gb DVD, but probably not if I had to copy the entire thing to my hard disk first. -- Cheers John Summerfield tourist pics: http://environmental.disaster.cds.merseine.nu/
