[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Desktop task broken on !(i386/powerpc)

Sven Luther wrote:
> Ah, no, there where a bunch of people who didn't like it, especially as it
> started breaking on all sides when kde was uninstallable on non-mainstream
> arches, and we were told that this was the right true way. Please don't go
> into revisionism at this time. I agree that it may be too late for this,
> altough maybe not, but we choose this approach in full knowledge.

If you would like to resurrect the potato tasksel and shove it back into
sarge with all of its misfeatures bugs and lacks, you're really free to
be my guest. Otherwise, stop whining, and please stop misrepresnting
what I've said.

> Yes, agreed on this. That said, his insitence that this was the right way
> in the past didn't encourage volunteers, i would guess.

Saying "no" is the most important job the maintainer of a software
system can do, and saying "no" does not imply that you think that your
way is the only right way or that you don't listen for better ideas.

I use a consistent set of rules, as documented in the tasksel source,
for all decisions involving the contents of tasksel tasks. If I just
made decisions on an ad-hoc basis, the set of tasks would look like they
did in slink -- a completly unusable mess. If someone proposes a better
set of rules, I will follow them. I did not even originate most of the
rules I currently use.

You're going to have a hard time showing me that your set of rules is
better if you continue to demonstrate that you're not even aware of the
current set, much less aware of the reasons behind them.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: