[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: packaging pine

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

>On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:48:57PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> >
>> >It isn't a dependency, it's only a Suggests.  It's in contrib because it's
>> >useless without non-free software.  Note that uw-imapd, which also suggests
>> >pine, is in main, because it is still useful.
>> Not Depends:, a dependency.  Can you really not tell the difference 
>> between small d dependency and large D Depends: ?  First you call 
>> something in contrib part of Debian, now you can't tell the difference 
>> between the normal speech usage of dependency and the Debian-specific 
>> usage of Depends:  Just find a hole to crawl in and pull it in with you.
>You are a troll.

I've been accused of that, yes.  Usually by people who knew they were 
wrong but that didn't wish to admit it.

>If you reread my messages, you'll find that at no point did I refer to
>anything in contrib as part of Debian.  You, on the other hand, have

You grouped two packages together: uw-imapd* and pgp4pine with the same 
broad brushed complaint about a Suggests: pine.  uw-imapd* you may have a 
legitimate complaint about, as they're in main and non-US/main, but the 
rules loosen with contrib, as that's the grey area that dependencies don't 
have to resolve within Debian.  Since you inclided pgp4pine in your 
complaint, and your complaint was the old "hermetic main" argument 
dropped down to the compromise level of "Suggests:", it would follow that 
the only way you could include pgp4pine in that complaint is by implicitly 
including it within Debian.  This is provably false: pgp4pine is clearly 
in contrib, where Debian makes no guarantees about the availability the 
needs of packages within it.

>demonstrated not only technical ineptitude and lack of understanding, but an
>even more pronounced inability to behave decently in a public forum.  I have
>yet to see you contribute anything but flames to any discussion or project,
>and your previous message was a perfect example.  You chimed in just to
>point out something obvious and irrelevant, and didn't even get it right.

Ah, yes, the last refuge of the incompetent, "oh yeah, well >MY< dick's 
bigger than yours".  

>Welcome to my killfile.

Works for me.  Refusal to think often is coupled with refusal to listen.

FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!

Reply to: