Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> (27/08/2009): > > It's so *nice* to see that after gathering advice from so many > > channels you still manage not to put the -bsd list in copy. :) > > I am not sure why you think the bsd list should have been > copied. I did not copy the hurd list either. The fact that the SELinux > packages are linux specific is no surprise, and recordi g that in P-a-s > just corrects an oversight on my part. Because after having asked on #dd and #-kbsd the same questions (you were asking the proper thing to do, etc.), you were answered to please Cc -bsd@ to make sure everything was in order, which you didn't do. Of course, trying to get opinions on IRC, being explicitly told not to rely on IRC, and to use mail instead is something you may want not to follow in the end… [*] > > Thanks for being so nice to porters after having tried so hard to > > understand the picture! > > I did not think this is a matter of porting -- indeed, porting > SELinux is probably onerous enough to be impractical. The solution for > squeeze is not to build these packages for !Linux, and the earlier we > get started removing them and rolling out new versions of packages that > link to the libraries the better. It is not as if the old packages are > gone, so there is no forced timeline. From the libsepol1 bug, you might infer that porters care. And guess what, porting is not about porting everything. It's about getting an architecture together. That obviously (or is that not so obvious?) includes dealing with packages that are arch-specific. That means P-a-s. Surprise! > > Time for me to go back sucking my eggs, see you later! > > From this I infer you are annoyed. I acknowledge that, though i > fail to see why exactlty. See [*] above. If you want to do something your way, don't ask for opinions and ignore them afterwards. And play the “I don't know what you mean” guy. That's just grotesque. Mraw, KiBi.
Description: Digital signature