Re: ash splitting and Herbert Xu (Fw: Bug#97310 acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#97310: More package-splitting stupidity))
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:43:17PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:22:28PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > What a brilliant, endearing, technical response to a serious question.
> > Look at the archives for #97310, especially where Aaron points out that the
> > bloating to the Packages file actually takes up more room than installing
> > ash, as opposed to ash-medium, saves.
> Well frankly that's the only response you could possibly get by
> repeatedly filing such frivolous bugs against my packages.
> For the record, ash-medium was intended to be used on the boot floppies as
> they lacked a small shell with history support. This is not appropriate in
> the main ash package since this history support is incomplete and also
> unnecessary for non-interactive use.
And the 1k drop justifies this?
> > This is another rude, unsatisfactory response I've had from him in the last
> > two weeks - are there any other avenues? How would I go about putting these
> > (especially kernel-*) to the Technical Commitee?
> Why don't you grow up, and then maybe I'll show you some respect.
Your response to 96854: "Go away."
Your response to 97310: "Piss off."
Who are you telling to grow up? You have rudely told me to leave, without
giving any technical justification, or any other matter than rudely telling
me to go away. What's next, "Get fucked."?
I don't respond to bug reports with "Fuck off.", I actually work with the
reporter, at the time, to get the problem solved. That's how it's done. You
know, the mature way.