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

Re: beta release update

On Sunday 09 October 2005 07:57, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:05:51PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Friday 07 October 2005 19:27, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > poxml is only needed for documentation, which is arch: all and will
> > > never be used on hppa. Just get ride of the dependency, or install
> > > a dummy package of that name.
> >
> > Would you please refrain from giving advise in an area where you are
> > not
> Would you please calm down now anbd stop this haughtiness ? I am now
> expecting apologizes from you and am rather pissed at the way you
> constantly get bashing, and over reacting on this and the kernel stuff.

I tend to only react strongly if someone is consistently ignoring more 
subtle hints. 

> If you say i am not qualified, 

Yes, it is very obvious you are not qualified in this case. The building 
of the manual for d-i at the time you gave this advise was tightly 
integrated into the building of the installer images itself as the manual 
_is_ . Thus the control file read:
   Package: debian-installer-manual
   Architecture: any

That is _any_, not all and so the manual _will_ be built for hppa. Thus 
your advise was horribly incorrect.

> i expect you to shut your mouth on
> anything kernel related, and not go screaming murder and trying to
> override us when we deal with the removal of kernel packages.

I have not said anything on the kernel. I have only pointed out the 
consequences the removal of kernel packages would have _on d-i_, for 
which I am quite qualified, thank you. If you consider that "screaming 
murder, well, that's your problem, not mine. Luckily the rest of the 
kernel team is quite happy to listen to requests from other teams 
affected by their plans.

> > qualified? Both Joey and I are much better informed and perfectly
> > capable of dealing with issues like these.

So, no I will not offer apologies for the content of my reaction. I might 
do for the tone, but not before you acknowledge that you were wrong here 
and were interfering in an area where it would have been better to let 
others handle it.

> Ah, yeah, i would really have appreciated if you had dealt with this
> when the powerpc builds where silently broken for various consecutive
> days, but the only comment i had was :
>   Add the builddep on poxml back in that was removed completely
> unnecessarily by svenl
> unnecessarily, yeah, sure, and after i get remarks from joeyh that the
> powerpc builds are broken, and please fix them, thanks a lot.

Well, before you found it necessary to remove poxml I had already given 
you the advise on IRC to either just install the old lib from stable to 
satisfy the dependency, or delete poxml _in your working copy_.

Also you removed poxml, but did you also think of adding it back yourself 
when poxml became available again? No, you chose to just solve your own 
problem in the short term leaving d-i as a whole broken...

> Soon i 
> will again be the guy who singlehandledly delayed the whole release by
> a week, thanks all the same, i don't know why i continue bothering with
> debian-installer stuff at all, and you are complaining that porters are
> not helping, but i can see why there is no interrest in it, if it is
> for being threated like shit. and i don't need to tell the state you
> left the powerpc d-i in when i had no time to look after it after the
> sarge release.

Don't know if there is any useful reaction to this except that I really do 
appreciate your work on powerpc stuff for d-i.

> > > Having d-i depend on kde (poxml is a kde package, right) is not a
> > > good thing for this kind of builds :)
> >
> > FWIW, Joey and I agree and Joey is separating the manual from the
> > installer itself as I write this mail.
> So, why did you need to go into the sven-bashing in the above paragraph
> ? You say i am completely stupid and have no idea what i speak about,
> and now that ?

No, I just said that your advise was incorrect and that I thought you were 
giving advise in an area where others are more qualified. That is not 
"sven-bashing": I would have said basically the same thing if someone 
else who is not a d-i release manager would have given unconsidered 
advise like this before even giving a chance to the d-i release managers 
to deal with the issue themselves.

I never said that I don't agree that dependency on poxml not very nice, 
just that removing it is breaking the build process instean of helping to 
fix the problem for hppa.

I very much respect your opinion and work on the powerpc, kernel, parted 
and probably loads more.
I do not dislake you or hold a grudge for something. Maybe you remember me 
helping you out with a grub issue very recently on #d-boot. Now, would I 
do that if I really had a problem with you personally?

> Well, the other possibility for this would be for poxml and stuff to
> change the poxml and other non-arch-dep stuff to use :
>   (7.6 of the debian policy)
>   Build-Depends-Indep, Build-Conflicts-Indep
>       The Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep fields must be
>       satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: build,
>       build-indep, binary and binary-indep.
> If you had used that since the begining, things would have been much
> easier for the porters and all.

Well, as mentioned earlier, poxml and the rest of the dependencies for the 
manual are _not_ non-arch-dep.

> Friendly,

Really? I had intended to make this reply friendlier than it turned out, 
but to be honest reading your reaction again pissed me off.


Attachment: pgpAosqK1ppDv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: