Re: Bug #32888: The old `base' package.
On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 07:12:06PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 07:55:03PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I'm trying to understand what kind of harm does the existence of the base
> > package which has to be considered as a "bug".
> >
> > Is there a technical reason why we should make "base" to disappear
> > from old systems?
> >
> > Is there any reason to make "base" to disappear other than aesthetical?
>
> I'm trying to understand what kind of harm the existence of the old,
> obsolete X font and static library packages cause which necessitates
> their consideration as "bugs".
IIRC, _you_ said it was no harm, so it was not a bug, and _you_ closed
_that_ bug. And now you attack Santiago 'cause he has been convinced you
were right? If it's not a bug in X, why is it in base?
> There. I've caught you at it. It doesn't matter to you which side of an
> issue you play, so long as it wastes people's time an bandwidth.
>
>
> Your credibility has been shot all to hell with me.
Sorry Branden, but that's a cheap shot. Santiago said the X fonts
"problem" was a bug, and everyone and their mothers yelled at him that
it wasn't a bug (and you closed it). Now that he's using exactly the same
reasoning he was told to use then, you say he has no credibility?
That's not fair. If it wasn't a bug in xfonts, it's not a bug in base.
It's just the very same aesthetical problem.
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
Reply to: