Re: Forwarded: RFC: New source packaging format
Majoj (SuperCite undone):
> [Ian Jackson:]
> > I was flabbergasted last night when I saw that Jim had answered
> > my 14-point `why-not' list point by point. That message was
> > intended to terminate the discussion, not start one.
> How very patronizing. You decided that there need be no
> discussion on this, and you decided to end the discussion. I'm sorry,
> I do not find this acceptable behaviour.
What ?! I just said I didn't _want_ to have an argument about it.
You think I was trying to suggest that I have some authority to force
the discussion to terminate ? Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that.
I was just saying I thought the discussion unhelpful and wanted it to
finish. Surely this is just as reasonable a position as you telling
me not to post things you don't lik.
Furthermore, I don't feel the need not to be patronising when someone
tells me how broken a particular design is and then proposes a
replacement which completely fails to take into account any of the key
facts about the problem in question.
> I don't think Jim would be oppposed to a better technical
> solution, or people pointing to flaws in design that were more than
> mere opinions.
Jim _is_ opposed to the better technical solution that I favour:
Furthermore, the fact that I had to go off and write my thesis has
nothing to do with whether or not Debian should use dpkg-source or bin
it. The technical arguments either way are the same. It's not even
as if the code is hard (unlike dpkg, which is very complex).
> And you need to offer something more than opinions when you
> say you find a design flawed. (I think it is rude to say that to an
> initial RFC, but I've given up on polite discourse with you).
Would you rather have code or long essays ? I have a limited amount
of time, and I can spend it coding or fighting this kind of fire.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
firstname.lastname@example.org . Trouble?
e-mail to email@example.com .