Re: libsafe and Debian installation
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 14:55, David Starner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:03:00PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> > why are you so anti libsafe?
>
> Because it will make for more bugreports, and if it's in the
> installation, they will be by people who don't remember it's there.
a fair statement, though I disagree with the conclusion. People can
install many things now to be LD_PRELOAD'd and not include that info in
the bug reports. A better solution would be to make encourage people to
include LD_PRELOAD info in the bug report.
>
> Because any problem that it covers up is still there to bite other
> Debian users, and should be fixed.
I don't disagree with the fact that the problem should be fixed, but I
don't see how that works against libsafe?
>
> Because I just wrote an "Installation Guide for Debian 3.0" for a class*,
> and this would be yet another question added to a fairly complex
> install, and another one that I would have to tell them "Just click no".
why? if they are worried about the overhead, ok, possibly a good
reason. If they are worried about it breaking programs, again possibly
a good reason. But then again, I'm running it on my laptop without much
of an issue to either.
I'll try to avoid cc'ing, its just a pain with evolution (no mailing
list hook type thing that mutt has), with only reply-to and reply-to-all
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: