Re: Keymap problems in D-I (was: Re: Bugs in the latest Debian Sid installer)
Am Sonntag 23 August 2009 18:59:26 schrieb Christian Perrier:
> Quoting Frans Pop (email@example.com):
> > > I guess this is because the "apt-install console-setup" is in
> > > kbd-chooser's post-base-installer, at a moment where APT sources are
> > > not available (or configured).
> > No, it was simply because the package was not on the CD at all! And that
> > would have been a *very* obvious thing to check, don't you think?
> Maybe, yes. If it was so obvious, why didn't you do it, then?
> I understand *you* have a much better knowledge of D-I than most other
> people working on it right now. I understand (or rather I hear) you
> laughing silently in your corner when one of us is fighting stupidly
> with a bug the way I did with that one. I understand you think you
> would do a much better job than us right now and that, in some way, we
> suck at maintaining D-I.
> I told you many times since you left the position of D-I release
> manager how valuable and respected is the work you continue to do and
> I think that all other people involved in D-I share that feeling. But
> probably all other also feel like the (often non intended) sarcasm you
> put in your remarks doesn't help that much. And we all have much
> trouble interacting with you in that mood, which should be very
> obvious since several months.
> In this very specific example, I don't really see the value added by
> the somewhat sarcastic remark *even* if I could have deserved it.
> We really need to find a better way to interact....and I think we are
> able to find it without drastic decisions (here, I try to anticipate a
> reaction of yours to drop your entire work on D-I, because this is
> definitely not something I want).
> > The rule is: if a package gets apt-installed, it *must* be included on
> > every bootable CD that includes the base system (i.e, all except the
> > businesscard).
> Point taken, though apt-install could very well install something *if*
> a mirror is available. But, yes, I understand this might hide problems
> like this one and we'd better avoid making this possible.
Hey you two guys (Frans and Christian - who else?)
Will you please cooperate better - otherwise no problems will be solved here
at all. That means: The more experienced (Frans) should not leave the less
experienced (Christian) alone. This leads to nothing but chaos.
In one answer in this long long thread I read something like "We are in a
transition phase to avoid usage of the package console-data" or similar.
I do not understand the methodical approach behind this, and this gesture
itself is causing me some headache.
Although I do respect that this is a testing or even unstable release that
contains errors the predominant principle should not only be but MUST BE "Eat
your own dog shit".
That means: If the developers know that the solution as a whole is incomplete
it's neither fair nor otherwise OK to publish it.
Or shorter: You cannot just rip out necessary partial packages (of lets say: a
netinst CD for example) and then publish the rest with the cynical question in
mind: Well lets see who complains first!
This is a gesture of totally displaced cynical and sarcastic idiots, if not to
I am still ready to test, describe and reproduce problems in a most possible
constructive mood, but I am NOT READY to play the role of an idiot testing
incomplete dogshit produced by some cynical assholes fucking up the whole
thing out of whatever insane egoistic reason, neglecting responsibility!!!!
That also means: If I do describe a problem arising with netinst I do not want
to talk about netboot because I neither use discless workstations, nor do I
owe NICS with EPROMS for remote boot.....
I prefer to talk to experienced people following the path that I accurately
describe. I do not want to waste my time to give triple explanations for one
and the same problem, goddamn!! One time must be enough, Basta!
And anything else pins in the ass!
Did I pronounce clear, or does anybody need further explanation??