On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 10:53:10AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 04:29:24PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > tag 569697 - patch
> so you removed the patch tag and are not actively helping others to Yes, I've no intention of using it. I was very surprised when I saw it was tagged at all. > rebase the patch onto your "unreleased packaging" you're holding back > for months, without any signs of progress. Well, the packaging isn't there and frankly your attitude here is rather arrogant - we've had dpkg support for this in experimental for less than a week, it's not in unstable yet and you're upset that I've not been actively integrating this into unstable? I have this idea that for patches that affect everyone I ought to at least be able to try them for myself. > Please note that relaxed NMU rules apply due to it being part of the > multiarch release goal now. Well, I'd probably revert any NMU that someone tries to do in advance of dpkg in unstable. It really seems entirely irresponsible to just throw stuff in there without any serious testing and I really want to see a bunch of random users get multiarch (which pretty much means a multiarch enabled dpkg in unstable) before doing anything to try to make sure that the transition has been thought through and tested properly. I've had quite enough of being caught up in poorly thought through transitions and their reversions. Really, your mail is entirely demotivating - I'd really reconsider the way you're approaching maintainers here. The failure to get multiarch dpkg changes in unstable is unfortunate but calling everyone wasters isn't constructive. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
