Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Monday 21 May 2001 16:15, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > I know as much about John Gault as I know about Thomas Bushnell, at least
> > in the areas of interest here, and I don't see any reason to be this rude
> > to a regular user of our product just because he always has an opinion.
>
> No-one is being rude to John for always having an opinion. People are being
> rude to him because he is ALWAYS rude.
So you say. My experiences with John have always been cordial. I would not
rate very much of what he says as "rude", even when talking to folks like
yourself.
>
> Do a web search and try and find some examples of him being polite.
Thank you so much for adding to my todo list ;-)
I have absolutely no interest in getting into a pissing contest with you
over what, if anything, constitutes "polite" discourse, or whether one
person or another practices such discourse. That is not the purpose of
this thread.
>
> > Personally my "birthday wish" would be that all you ego bound guys would
> > get a clue and stop interpreting criticism of a decision you made as being
> > a personal affront.
>
> Who has been doing that?
I must assume that you have really been reading this thread, and this
comment is rhetorical. If you really mean this as a true question then you
have NOT been paying attention.
>
> I don't take criticism of my decisions as an affront. I take slanderous
> comments about me and my work as an affront.
>From my point of view your idea of slanderous is my idea of criticism. We
seem to not define many useful words in the same fashion...
>
> > A. Why, on an upgrade, should LILO do anything more complex than replace
> > the binary files it contains? The system is running, so the boot process
> > is most likely the one the administrator wishes to keep.
>
> I believe that the current version addresses this issue. If you have
The version that is currently installed (following the upgrade that
originated this report) is 1:21.7.1-4, which is the same version reported
in apt's current Packages listing. (I did an update just now, before
checking the Packages file)
Unless there is a newer version somewhere in incoming, I can't agree with
your statement.
> problems with the current version in unstable then please report them to me
> via private email or the BTS and they will be fixed ASAP.
Discussion on -devel seems to be out of the question according to your
stated conditions...
>
> > Look; I reported a problem I had. Others agreed that they had these
> > problems too.
> >
> > OK, you have two possible replies. 1: That problem is fixed in the xxx
> > release; or 2: Thanks for the report, could you submit a bug report
> > against this issue, so I don't forget to fix it. (You can obviously also
> > just ignore it and hope it goes away...)
>
> I have been using options 1 and 2 for replying to all bug reports, and I
> believe that I have fully addressed all issues you raised multiple times!
Unless "fully addressed" means "fixed" then no, you haven't.
>
> > A reply to a third, supporting, party saying: 'Until you identify yourself
> > you can just fuck off', is much more useless than anything JG has ever
> > said on these lists.
>
> I have never said that. What I do say is that anyone who is totally
Ah! Good cop, bad cop...
> unwilling to do anything positive should fuck off to save wasting the time of
> people who are willing to do something. JG does nothing but flame people,
> both here and in other lists. JG is not a supporting party.
>
John's posting _was_ in support of my report. You chose not to make such
rude comments to me for my part in this "flamage", but took the coward's
approach and attacked someone you knew you could freely beat up in public.
> Some people are making an issue about the anonymity thing. That would not
> happen if JG was being in any way productive. There are many other people on
> this list who refuse to provide their identity but don't get the same
> reaction.
So, the only people who can make any comments about your work quality are
others making similar contributions, and the identity issue really isn't
important? Horse piss ...
>
> Now please read my messages before replying again. I see little evidence
> that you are actually reading my messages.
You see little evidence at all, where the rest of us are swimming in it.
Yes, I've read your whining, self serving, statements on this thread.
I point out, in all this reply, you never once addressed the only two
straight questions I asked in my previous posting. You seem genuinely
uninterested in others opinions or desires, so I see no point in wasting
any more of my valuable time on this thread, or you.
You have my report. You claim you have already fixed this. I'm still
waiting on any evidence that what you claim is true.
Looks like it's time to figure out how to use grub. I hope it's maintainer
is a bit better at taking criticism...
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
Reply to: