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 11:52:34PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 06:22:28PM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > 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?
>
> None with the bug reports you've filed so far. Your comments in #96854
> (kernel-image-*) and #97310 (ash) are frivolous. Put together some real
> reasons why these packages shouldn't be split, and post them here on
> debian-devel, or in a bug report. Then if there is no serious consideration
> of the issue, the technical committee could become involved.
Kernel-image:
* Unnecessary bloat, which doesn't help mirrors already having
trouble with load (especially aarnet).
* Lengthens kernel-image dpkg-buildpackage time.
* If people want to squeeze that extra percent out of their PC, they
should compile the kernel themselves. What next, one xmms package for every
flavour of i386, specifically optimised to give you that 1% extra?
Hell, there's an entire *thread* about this.
Someone has pointed out that ash-medium was designed for boot-floppies, I
wasn't aware of this before.
> It looks like you wasted a lot of time on patches for the kernel-image
> package. I'm sure Herbert can make the changes himself if he thinks
> they are justified. Sorry, but I think "piss off" and "go away" are
> reasonable replies for the bug reports you sent in.
Seeing as it all comes down to a difference of opinion and it *is* a rather
serious issue, I see no reason why TC shouldn't look at it.
Unnecessary package splitting is just plain evil, anyway.
--
Daniel Stone
daniel@kabuki.openfridge.net
Reply to: