On Wednesday 18 October 2006 22:55, Eddy Petrișor wrote: > Is either that or having a great installer which sucks just because we > have a _really_ crappy partitioner. And I don't think anybody can > argue, while being serious, that we didn't have lots of reports > complaining about the partitioner being crappy (I am not sure, but I > think this was one of the reasons behind partitioning recipes). Eddy, please be constructive instead of crapping on things. As long as _you_ don't come up with any new solutions, you just *do not* have the right to use language like this. > > I don't know what others thing about this but I think would be better > > to have a common partitioner for all frontends to avoid that kinda of > > complication in D-I release and development. > > In that case I guess Xavier just wasted his time on the C port of > gparted. No, he did not. It just has to be picked up after the release of Etch. Same as that the people you originally started the gtk frontend did not waste their time as Attilio eventually picked up the ball. > AFAIR, the reason why C++ is not supported in D-I is because the > maintainer of libc++ didn't answer to the request to create udebs... > and not having libc++ in D-I just because the maintainer didn't created > udebs is another proof that Debian has a lot of work to do WRT > communication. No, the reason is because the whole idea of having c++ in d-i is insane and was vetoed. When you make outrageous claims like this, at least make sure you get your facts right. For your information: it was exactly mails like this that got Sven's commit rights revoked. Please don't follow his example.
Attachment:
pgpH9sU68UBvz.pgp
Description: PGP signature