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

Re: Quarteryearly reminder (ftpmaster delaying installation)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 12:49:11PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:42:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And voila, more flamage and pointlessness. Do you really wonder why
> > people would rather keep their heads down and not give people an excuse
> > to complain?
> And being pointedly snubbed and insulted is not an excuse to complain?
> You don't want to deal with his problem, and yet you aren't willing to
> let him deal with it.

If he wants to deal with it, he can prepare a patch that the apt
maintainer thinks is suitable for inclusion in apt.

What I'm not willing to do is spend a few hours working out what the
changes in the fork are, what the patch in the BTS is, what, if any
differences there are between the two, whether the patch has obvious
flaws, what the apt maintainer thinks is wrong or needs to be done
further, precisely what maintainenance issues are likely to come up, and
whatever other random problems there might or might not be, and come up
with a convincing argument based on all that to justify any action that
might be taken when the uploader immediately posts to -devel complaining
about how ftpmaster have censored the one package which'll make sure
that Bill Gates is a pauper by the end of the week, or whatever.

If I were the actually reject the package, I'd feel obliged to have done
enough homework to give convincing answers to such questions. But it's
way more effort than it's worth, especially when the maintainer has the
obvious and clearly better workaround of just getting the functionality
integrated into apt proper.

Jason's not an idiot nor some sort of English-uber-alles freak, and
while there could conceivable be some reason why it was actually *better*
to have two packages, somehow I doubt it.

But in any event, whining on -devel isn't an excuse not to get the patch
right in the first place and integrated into the right place, especially
for our core packaging tools.

If anyone else would like to spend *their* time trying to get a resolution
worked out, you might like to look at bug#103778 or some of the apt-i18n
stuff in queue/new (the world-readable versions anyway). Of course, I've
no doubt most people bothering with this thread are more interested in
ranting about politics and how unfair everything is than actually fixing
the problem.

For reference, your next problem with getting i18n done well will probably
be that grisu's ddtp stuff is still too, uh, "resource intensive"
to be integrated with the archive proper. There're also probably some
layout issues.

Just because you've got a functional proof of concept doesn't mean your
works done. It doesn't even necessarily mean it's anywhere near half done.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgp3xHnwyEV39.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: