On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:08:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > So please just keep in mind that this is annoying > some others, and if you don't feel annoyed, just > live with the fact you aren't alone in this world, and > that some of us prefer a separated /usr partition.
Based on which technical merits? "I want to have a separate /usr, because I can" is not a reason to make things more complex and difficult in the development. I would agree if there was a technical reason, but I don't see any. And, as you see, enabling a separate /usr means extra work. > Now, I may add, I have no will to discuss it with you > anyway, after reading you impose on my your > partitioning scheme, and would like me to use my > computer the way *YOU* think is best. That is, by > the way, the same attitude systemd upstream has. Yes, you can do with *YOUR* computer whatever you want. You can paint it pink and attach nice flower stickers onto it. But that doesn't mean upstream or distribution developers always have to keep their software in the most flexible way so it would fit everybody. It's simply not feasible and wastes time and efforts sometimes. It's pointless to put so much effort to support every single use case. As I said before, 95% of the users don't care what init system they have. The same argumentation is valid when it comes to supporting certain architectures. Debian dropped support for m68k and Alpha and deprived users of their freedom to run Debian on these platforms with the latest supported software. But these architectures weren't dropped because they wanted to take away people's freedoms but because it was no longer reasonable to support them on the long term. You can still run and install Debian on these architectures, but since they really aren't that popular anymore, they shouldn't have a strong influence on the main development. > > And you are dodging my questions. Don't you think that people like > > Richard who make such bold claims that writing a free BIOS replacement > > is a matter of a few hundred lines of assembly, ridiculing the almost > > 15 years of development of Coreboot, cannot be taken seriously? > > > > Do you think that Greg - being a Gentoo developer himself - would make > > such statements if he didn't knew what he was talking about? > > I don't know these guys, I can't judge... > > > But I don't support forks which are created based on false assumptions > > of the original software. Another bad example where people forked and > > obviously don't know what they're doing is Trinity [3]. > > ...but I know that Gentoo guys aren't working > on their fork because of false assumptions only. According to Greg - the original author of the software - they do! I don't understand why you wouldn't trust the person more who designed the original software than the ones who are forking it. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121125174945.ga14...@physik.fu-berlin.de
