I'M NOT MEMER OF YOUR MAILING LISTS. MY MAIL IS : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED] IS ONLY FORWARD FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
WHY THIS MAILS COME TO ME?
EVERY DAY COME TO ME 200 MAILS FROM YOUR MAILING LISTS.
CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WITH IT?
THANK YOU.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: this post is not off-topic
>
> > Our users. Not our users of the most popular
> > architectures. _all_ our users.
>
> Please! Your last justification "we do it because it floats our boat, not
> for the users" was at least honest. One of your $250 hours would do more
> for "_all_ our users" if spent on a i386 than on 68k. This simple,
> irrefutable fact does not make 68k users "second class citizens". If you
> want to argue this, you need to go back to the original metaphor and
> explain why obscure diseases deserve as much funding as those affecting
> large fractions of the population.
>
> > Do you know what motivates the developers?
>
> I would certainly think so, since I am one professionally. And I (and I
> strongly suspect most other developers) get a much bigger kick out of
> doing something new that out of doing something old on an obscure
> platform.
>
> > Debian leadership? The project leader has no say in deciding
> > what architectures one releases.
>
> "No say?" That is flat-out wrong. The PL and RM may not decide alone,
> but they most certainly have a say, and a large one, in what architectures
> are supported. Most packagers will say "okay" to any proposed architecture
> (or at least would have in the past, before the woody debacle) because
> most packagers support relatively architecture-independent code. What
> seems to have been missed is that the few heavily architecture-dependent
> packages (e.g. XFree86) and the support infrastructure for the new
> architectures would hold up the whole show. It is precisely the role of
> the PL, RM, and other "meta-packagers" to recognize such structural
> problems and draw appropriate conclusions.
>
> Certainly the appropriate conclusion wouldn't be to "ban" any 68k package
> someone wants to produce. But it would be to say we will not freeze the
> whole damn distribution while we wait for them and the infrastructure they
> require.
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
