Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Monday 21 May 2001 18:33, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > 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)
Really? The below is from an update I did almost 24 hours ago...
Package: lilo
Priority: important
Section: base
Installed-Size: 267
Maintainer: Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au>
Architecture: i386
Version: 1:21.7.5-0
> Unless there is a newer version somewhere in incoming, I can't agree with
> your statement.
Actually the newer version was in unstable before you posted that message.
Is a web cache getting in your way? Or are you using a mirror that is slow
to update?
> > 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...
There has been discussion on -devel of issues which are appropriate for
-devel, such as the issue of packages depending on lilo and forcing the grub
users to have lilo installed as well.
What does it gain us if people flame package maintainers in -devel and claim
that it's "discussion"? People who refuse to provide details of the problems
where they are new issues and also refuse to accept that bugs have been fixed
really don't gain anything.
> > > 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.
You haven't tried the latest version.
> > > 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...
???
Thomas and I are not working together, even assuming that we like each other
is probably assuming too much (check the archives for our last discussion).
We simply happen to have similar opinions of JG for quite different reasons.
> > 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.
Actually the discussion had moved past that issue at the time John came in.
John just wanted to drag it back to that to start more arguements between
developers. Last time he was active in this list he was flaming me for not
joining him in attacking another developer, he seemed to expect that because
I had a disagreement with the developer in question that I would want to
flame him repeatedly, when in fact all I wanted was to have the developer in
question raise issues with me privately instead of discussing them on -devel
(and I had already got agreement to that before JG jumped in).
> > 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 ...
Once again you are trying to put words into my mouth. I did not say that
someone has to make similar contributions, I said that they have to make some
contributions.
> > 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.
I have already stated several times that I have removed all debconf code from
the lilo package. Also as I have previously stated I believe that the
rotation of the /boot/*.b files makes it possible to install a new lilo
package without the need to re-install a boot block.
> 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...
From another part of your message:
>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...
Below is my definition of slander. According to my definition accusing
someone of lying and refusing to perform basic checks (which would show that
they are telling the truth) is slander.
I realise that I made a mistake when I initially put the debconf code in
lilo, I have now come to the opinion that it is not possible to address all
the issues that different people have with it so I have removed it.
I have also come to the conclusion that choosing to spend my time maintaining
lilo when I could have been paid by the hour to do work that is at least as
interesting was a huge mistake. If I find someone willing to maintain lilo
and track all the new developments (LVM, new file systems, software RAID,
etc) then I will be able to rectify this mistake and spend my time more
productively earning money instead!
If you are willing to take over lilo, then let me know when you'd like it!
Would you like to take it immediately? Or would you like to wait until after
I have achieved my aim of fixing all bugs in the package?
From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
slander
n 1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
2: the act of defaming [syn: {aspersion}, {calumny}, {defamation}]
v : charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good
name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have
defamed me!" The article in the paper sullied my
reputation" [syn: {defame}, {smirch}, {asperse}, {denigrate},
{calumniate}, {smear}, {sully}, {besmirch}]
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: