Re: Multiarch support in dpkg — really in time for wheezy?
On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 23:25:09 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 15:14:16 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > You have claimed numerous times that the branch was "unsound, buggy"
> > (implying that I'm crappy coder, etc.) and I would not take offense on
> > this if you were at the same time pointing out concreate real problems and
> > if we could have a sane discussion on how to fix them.
> I guess we have either not been looking at the same mailing list or
> code base then, it's been a *fact*.
I think that due to poor wording or improper quoting, this might have
been misinterpreted. I've only been referring exclusively to the claims
of technical unsuitability of the code, nothing else and nothing more.