Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:01:22 +0200, Christian Perrier <email@example.com> said:
>> install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the
>> jihad against circular dependencies is making any such
> Is the word "jihad" meant to mean "holy, and aggressive, war to
> spread out a religion" here?
It also means, at least in farsi, and urdu, a war fought with
passion on a principle or belief. Lots of crusades and wars foought
for religion (though not necessarily to spread the religion) do fit
> I recently had an argument with another maintainer who also used tha
> word with that meaning, which it doesn't have in the muslim culture
> (I'm personnally a bit sensitive about that, for reasons I would
> have much difficulties to explain). I felt it to be pretty offensive
> to my muslim friends.
They felt offended by the term that roughly translates into
"holy war"? how ... strange.
> It that's the case, I'm not sure this is the best way to make the
> point. I'm actually following this thread and I try to understand
> whether the circular dependencies used by console-common (for which
> I act as co-maintainer with Alastair McKinstry) are Good or Bad.
I do think that there is a whift of dogma around the current
crusade against all circular dependencies, whther or not the
installation phase actually cares about the dependency or not. Oh
dear -- have I now offended all Christians?
> I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently do
> not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem to put
> in the word "jihad".
One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed circular
dependencies without bying the cool aid that all circular
dependencies are bad and must be eliminated at all costs.
I appreciate the former, I think the latter is a bad idea.
A bird in the hand is worth what it will bring.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C