Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > In my opinion, it's much more practical and reasonable for there to be an >> > agreement on consistent treatment of all packages, than for each Debian >> > derivative to try to please individual maintainers with differing tastes on >> > this subject. >> >> Your strategy seems to be to do something which pisses off almost >> everyone who has been near it, with your excuse being that there is >> not absolute unanimity on the alternative. > > That simply isn't true, and taken at face value, it's insulting, because you > attribute malicious intent.
Um, I have said nothing about your intent. I think you are desperate to do whatever minimizes your costs. > What I am doing is asking the Debian community for opinions on the > appropriate thing for Debian derivatives to do. Right, because you are now interested in scalability. If you were *really* interested in scalability, then you wouldn't adopt the wonderful "hey, all the patches are on our website, come and get 'em!" approach. You have not ever shown a serious interest in what Debian would like. Which is *fine*, you don't need to. But then, geez, stop pretending you are a great cooperator with Debian. > In response, you've been unnecessarily hostile, argumentative and > accusatory. There's simply no cause for it. The most productive > thing you could do in this situation would be to read my mail from > last May and (politely and thoughtfully) answer the questions > therein. Do what has *already been suggested*. You need to be using different version numbers *anyway* if you are recompiling the packages. So given that you are doing that (right?!) it is no trouble to adjust the fields. > Don't you realize how much easier it would be to ignore these issues > entirely, rather than endure these harangues just for the sake of trying to > collect information? Why do you think I would bother if I just wanted to > piss you off? I didn't say you want to piss anyone off. What I said was that what you are doing is having that effect. I think it's a reaction you wish didn't happen, but not so much that you are willing to change Ubuntu's practices. >> Notice that there is no agreement that what you are doing now is >> right, and to boot, it's contrary to the Debian policy manual too. > > Nonsense. What we are doing now amounts basically to inaction, is > consistent with how Debian derivatives have worked in the past, and has no > relevance whatsoever to the Debian policy manual. Please read the previous > threads on this subject. No, you are distributing packages with incorrect Maintainer fields. That's not "inaction", it's a specific action. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
