Re: beta release update
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 10:20:10PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > 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
Well, i maybe over-reacted some, but each time you replied, either on the
kernel upgrades and such, you over-reacted, reread your emails from then, and
see why i think you where screaming murder.
I gave advice, maybe not the best one, but something which may have allowed
him to build packages in the short run, which altough not a long term
solution, in general has some benefit in that it allows to quicker go to
solving other possible problems. And i did so in good faith.
So, i hope that next time you will reconsider your post, and instead of going
on the bashing end, say the exact same thing in a non-confrontational way, is
this much asking ? I mean this is already the fourth time in the few past
month that i did get this kind of tone from you, and it is seriously not-nice.
So, again, apologizes for taking it badly, but please next time try it in a
calmer tone :)
> > 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.
Yep, joeyh already pointed that out to me. Still i am not convinced, since no
binaries are built, and it would make perfect sense to build the powerpc
documentation on a i386 machine, or such, but you are the expert here.
> > 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.
Well, so you know how i felt reading your original reply :)