Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2001 14:35, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> >
> > 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?
This is slander under my definition of the word. I reported the state of
the woody archives as they were reported to me by apt-get. If that is a
public accusation of anything it was totally unintended. My only
"accusations" were about your treatment of others.
>
> 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.
>
Well, first of all I don't see _all_ of JG's comments as being useless.
He represents an active portion of our user base. His experiences are of
value.
My only aim was to inform you that I was tired of this irrelevant nonsense
about the value of one particular user, and I was tired of you defending
your position when all evidence I had suggested you were mistaken.
>
> 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.
>
You never offered!
Everyone is always free to e-mail me a fix to the problems I report on
-devel! I expect _that_ kind of reply from a developer!
YES!!! YES!!! YES!! ALWAYS FEEL FREE FOR SEND ME A FIX!!!!!
(Sounds a bit like a drug addict doesn't it ;-)
I realize most others would desire a warning when XXXMB of e-mail are
shortly headed their way, but I don't care! Send me anything!
> 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.
>
Some facts:
May 16: I make my initial report
5 people reply
May 17: RC reports upload of fix, and whines a bit about the chaff.
Flame War ensues
May 20: TB posts off topic, infantile rant about JG's merits
I reply, suggesting such comments were not logical
May 21: You reply to my suggestion by throwing fecal matter.
I reply with a report that, from my end, things haven't changed
You accuse me of accusing you of lying.
I will have to take your word for it (because that's the rule I use in
contradictory cases) that this was not what you wanted, but from the
content of your replies to others, and myself, I find it hard to think you
could have expected anything less.
I see from another posting that woody is _not_ unstable. But it also seems
from that posting that woody and unstable are now in sync. My only defense
for not knowing this fact is 7 years of experience under the old system,
and only a couple of months under the new. Also, my report was accurate in
identifying woody as the target upgrade path.
(see, I can be self-justifying too ;-)
At my earliest convenience I will attempt to upgrade to the newest release
of lilo. Can I provide a report to -devel of my experiences without having
to put up with so much crap, or should I just keep it to myself?
Obviously I could post on debian-testing, but I think that it would be
fairly off topic there at the moment, as boot floppy testing is our
current top priority. In any case, you would have received some kind of
report out of that group. Is that what _you_ want?
So, if a report on -devel of upgrade experiences is off topic for that
list, then I guess the only thing left is flame wars ;-)
All I'm looking for is a reasonable discussion about development issues.
Talking about whether one of the participants in the discussion is picking
his nose in public, or not, doesn't come close.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Reply to: