Ok, I just want to clarify some things, because it seems I might
have been misunderstood. In general, not being a LyX developer I don't
have the full view, so everything I'm writing here shouldn't be
considered as 'boolean' black & white.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:06:02 +0100
Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote:
> [...]
> the key part is that when i asked about taking responsibility to care
> about installer, you declined. thats perfectly fine, but then its
> unreasonable to expect that i'm going to write long mails explaining
> the situation, and doing mail digests from conference exchanges during
> last months for your convenience.
I wasn't expecting long mails at all. Just a short line like 'this
time we will not upload your work'. I still find it strange, though.
> i dont block AltInstaller, i block EMAltInstaller. it was clear from
> the previous problems that you dont share exactly Uwe's way of
> preparing binary. whether AltInstaller survives is dependent on Uwe's
> decision of the support of the official one.
Ok, I just find it strange to block anything at all - LyX is FLOSS,
most of these projects feed on the ability for everyone to experiment -
and this ability is severely handicapped by blocking sharing of the
results of these experiments, which in turn limits the project's
potential to expand. Just marking all the 'other', unsupported stuff
with a clear label (like 'unofficial') would be enough. But then, maybe
LyX is somehow different, and it is me who fails to see this
difference...
Another thing is, I try to follow Uwe's way as close as possible,
exactly because I don't want EMAltInstaller either, and this is the
only stable installer available right now. Just to let you know why...
> lyx team releases only tarballs. all installers are - up to now -
> single man shows. i'm not going to stop releases if they disappear to
> north pole or are just busy. either they wake up or somebody new takes
> the responsibility. i have been politely asking for months without
> success so there is probably no other way than through this
> frustration, thats it ;)
Ok, now I'm confused: why is installer's source code inside the
official rc1 tarball then? Mark it as 'unsupported' or something,
otherwise it seems simply misleading to me.
> be sure i was thinking about it a lot and discussed these matters with
> installer guys in backgrounds as well.
Glad to read that. Please consider my mails as just a constructive
criticism. It is never too late to change an opinion about something.
> see you in better times :) (hopefully)
> pavel
Well, it's not that I'm leaving :)
Regards,
Michał
