Ian Jackson wrote: > Ah, I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your comments in #597050. > I took them for an objection, rather than a request for help. I sent a grand total of two sentances to that bug report. I will assume that "I have not had any time to work on it" did not cause that misunderstanding. This leaves: | The two programs are not switch-compatable and I don't want to break | all the people who are using moreutils's parallel in scripts. It was, and continues to be the case that the programs are not switch compatable by default. Apparently, then you feel that "I don't want to break [...] scripts" is a technical objection within the purvue of the technical committee to overrule. Very interesting, especially in light of the technical committee's forcing of changes to dpkg that were known to be likely to break things badly, and indeed resulted in doing so. I have to say that while I respect the members of the technical committee, by current respect for the committee as a whole is rapidly plummeting. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature