Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis
<markos@genesi-usa.com> wrote:
> Luke,
>
> 1. My name is Konstantinos, or Kostas, or if you prefer, just call me
> markos. It's not konstantinos, and it's not konstantinous.
sorry! :) i have always spotted such auto-finger-typing errors in
the past: i apologise for having allowed one to pass through my
normally-vigilant attention span.
> 2. My workload is big even without considering "crazy" solutions of
> distro-wide bitbake-integrations. If you so strongly believe that this
> method works so great, feel freel to demonstrate it by *proving* it works.
i will be happy to do so with the proviso that i am financially
rewarded for doing so, or can perceive that some significant financial
and immediate reward will be gained by doing so.
i apologise for having to add such a quite reasonable proviso but the
value placed on significant strategic contributions - including
"actual proven code", that i have made over the past fourteen years to
free software has resulted in financial gain to others - often quite
significant gain - frequently at my expense, and i believe that many
would agree that it would be completely fucking stupid of me to allow
said situation [spongeing off of my expertise and contributions] to
continue. ESPECIALLY given that myself and my family face eviction
due to having to prioritise payment of food, in order to stay alive,
over payment of rent, since about, ooo, august.
i trust, also, that you place a high value on the abilities of those
whose time is best spent devising strategic contributions and
advocating time-saving plans and designs, rather than also focussing
their time on actually *implementing* those solutions as well? whilst
it has to be said that there is case to be made for prioritising the
contributions of people who _do_ then follow up by providing an
implementation as well, it also has to be said that there are
circumstances where people may or may not have the time, or even may
simply not be as *quick* as someone else who may be able to implement
said plan, but to dismiss the ideas on the basis that the contributor
hasn't actually "turned it into code" is an argument that is
increasingly beginning to look very very stale in the face of the
increased complexity and inter-connectness of free software's overall
place and parts.
sorry, markos, but that does have to be said.
> Otherwise, it's just noise that distracts me from my work. I seem to
> remember someone famous saying sth like "show the code or sth..."... :P
> So, please don't hijack the thread and the bug report, with something
> totally irrelevant.
i apologise for giving the impression such that you might consider
the thread and the bugreport to have been either or both hijacked
and/or irrelevantised.
i am disappointed that you would even consider my idea to be same, as
it was made in good faith as a way to assist you and save _you_ time,
as well as being a way to reduce the stress of the "prioritisation"
situation (where dpkg's patches is "holding up" development of armhf),
such that others may be of assistance to you and the ongoing armhf
efforts be more of a collaborative effort, as well as being possible
within a much more "relaxed" working environment, and i am therefore
at a loss.
perhaps you or others might advise me as to the best way in which to
present this idea, or perhaps you might reasonably wish to discuss it
amongst yourselves or even here on the list _without_ prejudice,
asking questions such as "what are you on about, weirdo?" to which i
will be more than happy to respond with glee and wanton abandon, and
might even stick to the topic at hand and thus help debian progress
with this strategically important project.
might i also respectfully advise that you consider, with respect,
that far from _me_ "polluting" or "hijacking" the thread, it is _your_
views which have, most ironically, i must with some regret, hesitation
yet the utmost respect at the same time, point out have "hijacked" the
thread with matters that can be considered, by some, in fact to be
"totally irrelevant".
i say this with extreme care, with the utmost respect, without
prejudice, and apologise most profusely to all recipients for having
to raise this, and also have taken the care to remove the bugreport
from the cc list so as not to further "pollute" or "hijack" the
ongoing relevant and strategically important discussion.
i also apologise to all concerned for having engaged with and
incurred the wrath of employees of genesi-usa, who now appear to, most
unfortunately, be universally to a man seeking some sort of
retribution, and i apologise to all concerned for you having to
witness, in public mailing lists, such responses with such an aim in
mind. i also - again - apologise once more to genesi-usa employees
for having called one of them out on "protectionist" practices which
took place on public mailing lists, and for the subsequent fall-out
and alienative (and importantly PRIVATE) discussions which resulted.
people are funny, sometimes. but i'm sorry - i value honesty,
integrity and "goals" over ego. it drives people nuts (webkit bug
#16401 is a classic) but i'm _not_ going to stop being honest and
up-front. i see such as being a fundamental and important part of
being involved with free software, and i'll be damned if i'll let
people get away with being dishonest or disintegritous. call me an
egomaniac for that, if you wish, and you'll get an apology from me
that should disabuse you of any such notion. but - once again, i
apologise in advance: i _will_ continue to follow my ethics and the
level of integrity i've chosen to uphold, regardless of how that it is
viewed by others.
ok. i'm now seriously in danger of being accused of hijacking and
waffling with irrelevancy with _that_ paragraph :)
take care, markos.
l.
> Konstantinos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_%28name%29)
>
> On 17 February 2011 22:19, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis
>> <markos@genesi-usa.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I really would like to know the stance of the dpkg maintainers
>> > regarding the
>> > armhf dpkg patch. I have a ton of armhf patches that I'm waiting to file
>> > as
>> > bug reports, but without the dpkg patch, those patches would be useless,
>> > so
>> > I'm holding back, but that in the meantime increases the workload as
>> > newer
>> > packages appear all the time and I have to forward port the armhf
>> > patches all
>> > the time.
>>
>> konstantinous,
>>
>> this is PRECISELY why i advocate - and continue to advocate - a build
>> system based around bitbake (NOT REPEAT NOT THE ENTIRE OPENEMBEDDED
>> INFRASTRUCTURE AS ASSUMED BY SOME PEOPLE WHO THEN ASSUMED I WAS A
>> F*****G IDIOT FOR EVEN MENTIONING BITBAKE)
>>
>> the reason is plain and simple: patches-to-packaging such as the
>> patch to dpkg you refer to can be applied easily by bitbake
>> infrastructure prior to a build, in fact the entire debian packaging
>> of dpkg and other packages that you are maintaining differences on can
>> themselves be committed to a bitbake-compatible git repository, that
>> git repository uploaded, managed, distributed and generally worked on
>> by *other* people not just yourself;
>>
>> each set of patches-to-debian-packages, as they *are* accepted
>> upstream can then be *dropped* from the git repository;
>>
>> and so on and so forth.
>>
>> there are damn good reasons why i mentioned and advocated the use of
>> bitbake as both a package-development as well as a build AND a
>> cross-build tool, precisely to help _you_ to cater for the exact
>> circumstances in which debian developers now find themselves causing
>> quite some awkwardness as the build progresses.
>>
>> perhaps, even, horror-of-horrors or hope-beyond-hope depending on
>> which side of the fence you sit, such a system might even help to
>> manage the scenario where large-scale en-masse changes could be
>> planned, developed, made and reviewed to ubuntu packages, thus
>> allowing ubuntu to actually be what it should have bloody well been in
>> the first place: nothing more than an extra debian repository with
>> overrides for certain packages.
>>
>> what stops that from being desirable let alone feasible is the fact
>> that ubuntu is designed to be idiot-proof, thus only the idiots use
>> it, and that keeps them the bloody hell away from debian, which is
>> GREAT! :)
>>
>> l.
>
>
Reply to: