Re: policy changes toward Non-Interactive installation
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Joey> If, however, you make it difficult to ensure that a machine tracking
> Joey> stable is not running the current version of realplayer, expect me to
> Joey> send you bug reports.
>
> I see. Well, I guess, given this, I am not going to take over
> your package. I'll just create a set of packages that conflict with
> yours. As I said, the itch is getting enough for me to scratch.
>
> Joey> If you want to maintain realplayer, it is yours. I have
> Joey> intended to drop all my contrib packages anyway. I hereby
> Joey> orphan the package.
>
> Sorry. The whole idea of my realplayer package is to be a
> lower hassle package; it won't periodically bother you. Since you are
> threatening the next maintainer with bug reports unless they follow
> your directions, I'm not too keen on taking it.
Manoj, you have now several times used loaded words in this discussion:
"hectoring", "threatening".
Stating that one will file a bug if a feature one depends on, for
reasons one has previously stated[1], is removed, is not "threatening". It
is a statement of fact, and a privelidge we accord all users of Debian.
Until you can stop using loaded words, which feels to me as if you are
trying to provoke a flamewar, I will conduct no further discorse with
you.
Moreover, I find your entire manner in this thread insulting. First you
come in and state that the entire design of this package I have
maintained for 3 years is broken by design. You raise some valid points
as well. Then, without even giving me a chance to respond, you raise the
specter of _forking_ my work ("I'll probably steal your code"), and
introducing a duplicate package into Debian, which will only serve to
confuse users. Who is threatening whom again?
Then you compound these insults by demanding that I rename my package,
which has 3 years of prior art, to make way for your vaporware. I avoided
flaming you in that last message by deleting said flame out of my laptop's
mail queue, and responded by essentially giving you the package, and backing
down, asking only that you not break it for *me*, and, presumably, for all
the people who have been quietly using it for 3 years without complaining
about its grossly bad design. And you respond with the above.
I hope you might have a glimmering of an idea now about why I'm upset.
I hope _someone_ enjoys maintaining realplayer; I never have. And I
sincerely hope it's not you.
--
see shy jo
[1] And which, for crying out loud, you just agreed with! ("Good point.")
Reply to: