On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:33:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote: > > Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal > > of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an > > implementation which convinces them :) > > Bullshit. > We (d-i team, mainly Joey) gave very good reasons why we thought the > proposal was not good and would result in more problems than it solved.
You did indeed give good reasons why having the one .udeb per module plan i follhardly proposed would not work. The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation and move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something that works out just fine for ubuntu even, but which the current linux-2.6 common package infrastructure could also handle. The only reason i saw against this was a mail from joeyh mentioning ease of moving modules around inside .udebs, and that this would be easier under the d-i umbrella than if it is inside the kernel, and naturally the old sarge-time brokeness in the archive infrastructure, which is presumably fixed by now, or should be fixed for etch. I believe that this is indeed an argument, but which is outweighted by the benefit especially on the port situation, i believe, and the reason i come back with this times after time :) > That you choose to structurally ignore the opinions, comments and > objections by others who are a lot more knowledgeable about the _other_ > area in Debian impacted by the proposal is typical. Yeah, i am an idiot and you know best, especially when you fail to clearly understand what i propose and chose to reject it on the basis of what you think i propose, this is probably due in part to some lacking in my communication skills, but i guess you also don't make things easy. > Your half-baked proposals may look good from a kernel maintenance > viewpoint, but in our opinion they have a negative impact on the d-i side > of the equation. And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back in april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security with regard to kernels during these past months. Don't look only to save a few hours of work during the moment, in order to lose huge amounts of times (and irremediable lose of face even) later on. > Rejecting a badly thought out proposal is _not_ the same as saying no > outright. Yeah, but you have kept saying to me : it is a stupid idea, don't even think about it, and then you speak about badly thought out proposal ? > I'm not going to repeat the arguments here. They can be found in the > archives. Indeed, apart from the fact that they are the arguments against the wrong proposal :) > Your attitude does nothing to motivate me to work on this. Yep, but i don't ask you to work on this, while you ask me to not work on it and keep the status quo, which is broken. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
