[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Feaping Creature-ism in core Debian Packages

>>>>> "Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

 slimmed down for clarity..

    Dale> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
    >> > The perl community informs me that there is no perl
    >> grammar. They > don't themselves know what is and isnt perl
    >> except by feeding it > through interpreter of the week.
    >> This is gratuitous hyperbole.

    Dale> Well, it seems to be the crux of the matter from my POV.

 Yes, that is correct. This type of FUD does seem to be the crux
 of your argument

    >>  > If we standardise on it and bugs (eg security stuff) is
    >> found the > perl community don't back fix old perl.
    >> THIS is a vile lie.
    >> I am personally responsible for continuing the maintenance of
    >> Perl 5.4 and 5.5 (recently taken over from Graham Barr), and I
    >> (and Graham) take security issues VERY seriously.  I patched a
    >> suid security problem in 5.3 when 5.4 was almost ready.  And I
    >> released a patch to 5.4 within the last few months, even though
    >> 5.5 is the current version and 5.6 is nearly ready.

    Dale> A. Are you speaking as the Debian maintainer, or as an
    Dale> upstream maintainer? (I am pure ignorant...)

 How about a primary upstream maintainer...

    Dale> B. The version numbers you quote don't fit the versions I
    Dale> have been dealing with. (5.004, 5.004.05, and 5.005)

 and gosh he didn't even mention  5.005.064 or any of the other
developmental releases. There are a ton of perl releases.

  and there are update patch releases for prior public releases. 
  There seems to be a lot of concern in the perl5 developer list
  to make sure that each release, and update to prior releases
  builds on each supported platform and in multiple configuration.

  the perl test suite is fairly complete

    Dale> C. Even if Alan is mistaken in his appraisal, what makes his
    Dale> statement "vile"?

 When statements are as FUD as the prior statement, I agree that they
are vile.

  Suppose someone wrote the Debian was a non-stable version of
psudo-unix that was full of holes, and that there was no one that
would or could claim responsibility. And based on the claim proceed to 
make a business decision to go with Sun instead.
   Would _you_ consider those statement about debian  vile?

   I think the consensus would be 'yes'

Kermit Tensmeyer   - kermit@brite.net    [  dallas, texas ]
   and this is my opinion, and not the property of anyone else!

Reply to: