On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > 1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the package > > namespace in the archive. The fact that you don't like the name of my > > package > > proves your previous argument was intentionaly bogus. > > The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within > other arguments against your "linux" package.
How many software programs called "linux" are around? > IIRC you prefered not to > answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers. I don't recall seeing this question before. So unless you provide a link to that, you're liing. > > 2) I use the upstream name. If you don't like it, bitch upstream. > > Sorry, how much did you drink to find an answer like this one? If Linus > changes the package name (which is unlikely to happen ;)), I am sure you > would rename your ITP to follow him. Untill Linus changes the package name, this issue is not my problem. > > The FTP masters will have to dig through the smoke curtain you and others > > attempted to rise. Fortunately, there are two reasons why this shouldn't be > > a problem: > > > > - The current Linux kernel maintainer welcomes my work: > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00452.html > > You repeat this again and again and got answers from me and others to > such an ultimate argument. I don't recall seeing such "ultimate argument" before. So unless you provide a link to that, you're liing again. > But did you ask yourself why Herbert does not > participiate this discussion to help you? I guess Herbert has better things to do than wasting his time in this stupid flame. Btw, "stupid flame" is your choice of words, not mine: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00415.html > > - Noone managed to beat the advantages I listed before: > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html > > And after removing bogus and irrelevant ones from that list, it became > empty. Indeed. > Why cannot you invent something new to convince us? As I said before I'm unwilling to understand your sarcasm. -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
