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

Re: policy changes toward Non-Interactive installation

>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:

 Joey> Manoj, you have now several times used loaded words in this discussion:
 Joey> "hectoring", "threatening".

	Should I have said ``promising'' bug reports? 

 Joey> Stating that one will file a bug if a feature one depends on,
 Joey> for reasons one has previously stated[1], is removed, is not
 Joey> "threatening". It is a statement of fact, and a privelidge we
 Joey> accord all users of Debian.

	Thus my response of the fork. This too is a priviledge of free
 software development. 

 Joey> Moreover, I find your entire manner in this thread
 Joey> insulting. First you come in and state that the entire design
 Joey> of this package I have maintained for 3 years is broken by
 Joey> design.

	I am sorry you find this insulting. But in all honesty this is
 what I do feel about this: I do find packages like this (i believe
 the old netscape packages were like this too) to be, umm,
 suboptimal. After carefully populating a local mirror, one suddenly
 finds, often in the middle of an install, that one needs to download
 several hours worth of stuff (not during the preinstall, no). Then
 there is no chance of deferring this download -- the whole install
 process breaks. by this time, of course, it is too late to hold the
 package -- it has been unpacked, but not configured. And it shall
 remind you evrey time until you download the darned binary. Yes, I do
 consider the design broken.

	Longevity is an imperfect measure of correctness.

 	I am willing to grant that others may not consider this
 broken. And may even like this behaviour. So a fork seems the logical

 Joey> You raise some valid points as well. Then, without even giving
 Joey> me a chance to respond, you raise the specter of _forking_ my
 Joey> work ("I'll probably steal your code"), and introducing a
 Joey> duplicate package into Debian, which will only serve to confuse
 Joey> users. Who is threatening whom again?

	This after you orphan your package? 

	You did respond. You asked me, and I quote "if you do not want
 to download realplayer, why are you installing it now?". Not
 something I find particularily useful. Obviously the whole design
 philophy of the package was against my desired response for the

	And what I said was if you find the design I proposed to be
 unacceptable as a maintainer, which is your right, then I'll fork the
 package. Why on earth do you look upon a fork (espescially of a
 package you claim never to have liked maintaing, and one you were
 planning to orphan anyway) as a threat? 

	And if you seriously are offended by people reusing your code,
 you are supporting the wrond software development process in
 Debian. (I can't honestly believe you are upset about someone
 ``stealing your code'', so this is either heat of the moment, or pure

	I am surprised. This is the last place I expected to find
 people bothersd by code ``stealing''. Fine. I'll not use any code you
 wrote. Happy now? I'll write the bloody thing in Perl. I have no idea
 what your postinst is written in, so I can even claim clean room
 conditions. I hope you are not claiming that you have dibs on the
 idea of a real player installer so I can't now upload a realplayer
 builder now.

 Joey> Then you compound these insults by demanding that I rename my
 Joey> package, which has 3 years of prior art, to make way for your
 Joey> vaporware.

	Your package is misnamed. It is not realplayer, it is a
 realplayer installer. A real .deb realplayer binary has better claim
 to the name realplayer.  I am sorry if that is not as obvious to you
 as it appears to be to me. 

	You are free to agree not to change the name. I'll call the
 binary package that actually has the realplayer software something
 else. realplayer-real, I guess. or realplayer-bin. 

 Joey> I avoided flaming you in that last message by
 Joey> deleting said flame out of my laptop's mail queue, and
 Joey> responded by essentially giving you the package, and backing
 Joey> down, asking only that you not break it for *me*, and,
 Joey> presumably, for all the people who have been quietly using it
 Joey> for 3 years without complaining about its grossly bad
 Joey> design. And you respond with the above.

	Well, what _did_ I respond with? I just said I am not going to
 take your package. If you are so enamoured of the behaviour, you
 should be happy: you just keep your package around, and you get your
 behaviour. People like me can use my package. Seems like the best of
 both worlds.  

 Joey> I hope you might have a glimmering of an idea now about why I'm upset.
 Joey> I hope _someone_ enjoys maintaining realplayer; I never have. And I
 Joey> sincerely hope it's not you.

	Why, Thank You, kind sir. Rest assured the bug-promise has
 ensured that shall never happen. 

 Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb? A: One.
 Only it's his light bulb when he's done.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: