Re: Woody upgrading problems, LILO and debconf
On Tuesday 22 May 2001 17:53, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> > Your initial report of the problem was not a flame and I never said that
> > it was. Any other messages which are as accurate and which adhere to
> > technical facts in that way are welcome.
> >
> > Your later message in which you publically accused me of lieing about
> > having uploaded a debconf-free version of lilo was a flame and was
> > slanderous. Do you seriously expect me not to flame you when you are
> > sending me such messages?
>
> This is slander under my definition of the word. I reported the state of
> the woody archives as they were reported to me by apt-get. If that is a
> public accusation of anything it was totally unintended. My only
OK. I accept that this was a misunderstanding about the definition of
"woody" regarding testing vs unstable.
> "accusations" were about your treatment of others.
> > John Galt has not posted a single message on the topic which had any
> > technical value or any useful content. Please explain why you defend
> > such behaviour if your aim is not to publically attack me.
>
> Well, first of all I don't see _all_ of JG's comments as being useless.
> He represents an active portion of our user base. His experiences are of
> value.
Sure. Any time he wishes to report experiences or add to the discussion
instead of flaming everyone who disagrees with him then his input will be
welcome.
> My only aim was to inform you that I was tired of this irrelevant nonsense
> about the value of one particular user, and I was tired of you defending
> your position when all evidence I had suggested you were mistaken.
>
> > In this time I could have emailed you a copy of the deb, you could have
> > tested it and given me your opinion on it, and I could have released
> > another version to address any issues you had. We could have iterated
> > through that process a few times even.
>
> You never offered!
>
> Everyone is always free to e-mail me a fix to the problems I report on
> -devel! I expect _that_ kind of reply from a developer!
I had already stated in a message CC'd to you that the new version was
uploaded. IMHO that gives you reasonable options to wait for it to be
processed, to copy it from the incoming queue (as I once did when I couldn't
wait for a bug fix), or to request that it be emailed to you direct.
> YES!!! YES!!! YES!! ALWAYS FEEL FREE FOR SEND ME A FIX!!!!!
> (Sounds a bit like a drug addict doesn't it ;-)
>
> I realize most others would desire a warning when XXXMB of e-mail are
> shortly headed their way, but I don't care! Send me anything!
I will keep that in mind for future use. I have just emailed you a copy of
the current package that is in unstable just in case.
> At my earliest convenience I will attempt to upgrade to the newest release
> of lilo. Can I provide a report to -devel of my experiences without having
> to put up with so much crap, or should I just keep it to myself?
You can report anything you like wherever you like. Sending private email to
me or reports to the BTS will reach me first, I don't always read mailing
list messages every day.
> Obviously I could post on debian-testing, but I think that it would be
> fairly off topic there at the moment, as boot floppy testing is our
> current top priority. In any case, you would have received some kind of
> report out of that group. Is that what _you_ want?
I am not subscribed to debian-testing, I would prefer things to be discussed
on lists that I am subscribed to. But if you feel that the matter needs
input from people who are subscribed to debian-testing but not to
debian-devel then sure go for it.
> So, if a report on -devel of upgrade experiences is off topic for that
> list, then I guess the only thing left is flame wars ;-)
As I have said several times your original message was fine, I found nothing
to object to in it.
I did note that you hadn't read a previous message of mine related to the
issue, but that's not a big deal, it's easy to miss a message on a busy list.
> All I'm looking for is a reasonable discussion about development issues.
> Talking about whether one of the participants in the discussion is picking
> his nose in public, or not, doesn't come close.
I would like reasonable discussion, however reasonable discussion is not
possible with people who are being consistantly unreasonable.
I think that it has been adequately demonstrated here that there are enough
unreasonable people interested in this topic to make it impossible for it to
be reasonably discussed. Read through all the messages and count how many of
them actually mentioned technical issues related to LILO and you will see my
point. In fact the only messages that had any useful technical content were
your original message and my reply, all the rest were flames.
I am trying to think of ways of having a reasonable discussion about these
issues. The only option that has occurred to me so far is to put in a filter
to discard all messages from the debian-devel list which reference LILO.
Do you have any suggestions?
--
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: