Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
(I apologize to all of you for responding once more to this message, but
I thought that it would be a good idea, in case any others had misconceptions
about what exactly those of us working on a static binary package are
trying to accomplish. This will be my last reply.)
Let me try this again.
I do not understand what it is you are angry about, primarily because as
far as I can tell, you don't understand what it is that we're doing. I
have never argued that we should change the default; in fact, I wrote
code so that it would be possible to set things up so that as far as the
end user was concerned, there was no difference at all -- root's shell
would still appear to be bash -- until something went wrong, and suddenly,
lo and behold, root would still have a shell. Secondly, I never said that
a static binary package should be of Required priority.
Please do not continue this argument unless you can do it without personal
attacks and questionable logic, and with organized technical arguments.
Shouting will never help convince people of your side.
-- Nathaniel
On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 12:51:41PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 06:50:28PM -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> > > YOU people are the ones who want something different. DON'T TRY TO
> > > FORCE IT ON EVERYONE ELSE.
> and
> > > in plain and simple terms:
> > >
> > > do whatever you like with your own systems, but DO NOT FUCK WITH THE
> > > DEBIAN DEFAULTS.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I truly don't understand what exactly it is that you're
> > shouting about,
>
> are you really that thick or does it suit your argument to appear to not
> understand? how much plainer could it possibly get???
>
>
> > (in fact, my sole role in this discussion so far has been an attempt
> > to avoid changing defaults).
>
> to summarise and paraphrase your involvement:
>
> "changing the defaults is a bad thing, so lets not do that. but it's
> hard not to, so lets do it...unless we can avoid doing it by trying
> <something that does not work>. oh dear, that doesn't work, doing it
> properly is too hard so it looks like we'll have to change the defaults
> after all."
>
>
>
> you have repeatedly missed the point. here it is again:
>
> if you and/or others want static binaries and so on for some perceived
> but as-yet-undemonstrated need then it is up to YOU to implement that
> need in a way which does not affect everyone else who does not give a
> damn about your imaginary problems.
>
>
> similarly, if you and/or others wish to change default settings or
> behaviours which have worked perfectly well for ages in debian then it
> is up to YOU to demonstrate that change is needed and that there is no
> other reasonable alternative.
>
>
> if you fail to understand this again then i am afraid that i will have
> to leave you in ignorance - i have no more time to waste on someone who
> will not or can not understand something even when presented in simple,
> unambiguous terms.
>
>
> craig
>
> --
> craig sanders
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: