Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 14:35, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Package: lilo
> > Priority: important
> > Section: base
> > Installed-Size: 267
> > Maintainer: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
> > Architecture: i386
> > Version: 1:21.7.5-0
>
> So, where did you get it? My woody Packages files, updated yesterday from
> http.us.debian.org and non-us.debian.org. They still show the older
> version.
I got it from ftp.debian.nl. I use ftp.debian.nl because it's significantly
faster for me. I had been under the impression that ftp.debian.nl was faster
because it's in the same country as me, but it could be that the US servers
(which I used to use until recently) are experiencing extreme problems due to
load. Such problems may include an inability to sync from the master
machines.
> > > Unless there is a newer version somewhere in incoming, I can't agree
> > > with your statement.
> >
> > Actually the newer version was in unstable before you posted that
> > message. Is a web cache getting in your way? Or are you using a mirror
> > that is slow to update?
>
> Don't know...
>
> If woody = unstable, then I'm pretty sure it isn't there.
Here's a URL that has it. Be sure to check the time stamp.
http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/pool/main/l/lilo/
Here's the URL for the Packages file that references it:
http://ftp.debian.nl/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/
> > > > problems with the current version in unstable then please report them
> > > > to me via private email or the BTS and they will be fixed ASAP.
> > >
> > > Discussion on -devel seems to be out of the question according to your
> > > stated conditions...
> >
> > There has been discussion on -devel of issues which are appropriate for
> > -devel, such as the issue of packages depending on lilo and forcing the
> > grub users to have lilo installed as well.
> >
> > What does it gain us if people flame package maintainers in -devel and
> > claim that it's "discussion"? People who refuse to provide details of
> > the problems where they are new issues and also refuse to accept that
> > bugs have been fixed really don't gain anything.
>
> The implication is that my report was a flame. I resent this suggestion,
> as I was simply trying to report my experiences to the group. When such a
> report is greeted as non-constructive, and rude to the poor inocent
> maintainer, I can do nothing but object.
You initial message on this topic was fair. I entered to a reply to it and
CC'd you and another person. In that reply I addressed the issues you
raised, and included a flame at the end for the person who flamed me.
> My report was a good faith effort to help resolve a problem. Calling it
> lies and slander is just not a good way to gain my cooperation in this
> effort. I have seen you make several unwarranted assumptions about other
> peoples intentions. Please stick to the facts. Suggesting that someones
> comments are "intended" to hurt or disrupt under these circumstances does
> nothing to resolve the issues under discussion.
Your initial report of the problem was not a flame and I never said that it
was. Any other messages which are as accurate and which adhere to technical
facts in that way are welcome.
Your later message in which you publically accused me of lieing about having
uploaded a debconf-free version of lilo was a flame and was slanderous. Do
you seriously expect me not to flame you when you are sending me such
messages?
John Galt has not posted a single message on the topic which had any
technical value or any useful content. Please explain why you defend such
behaviour if your aim is not to publically attack me.
In this time I could have emailed you a copy of the deb, you could have
tested it and given me your opinion on it, and I could have released another
version to address any issues you had. We could have iterated through that
process a few times even.
Or any of the people involved in this discussion could have reported bugs in
the BTS and I could have released a new version to rectify any bugs that they
reported.
But instead we all spend our time in this flame war. Is that what you want?
It certainly isn't what I want.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: