Re: policy changes toward Non-Interactive installation
>>"Joey" == Joey Hess <firstname.lastname@example.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, 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
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
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
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
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
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 <email@example.com> <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