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

Re: Quarteryearly reminder (ftpmaster delaying installation)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 04:38:02AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.

If you read the thread, you see that he didn't got a reply to his last
mail. He asked any comments or objections about ITP'ing a new
package. *Nobody* objected. Nobody told him anything. How can he know
that its wrong?

> 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.

Clairvoyance wasn't part of the NM process when I did it a few months
ago. Somebody need to tell him, else he won't know. Just saying your
have your doubts, then he can give some good arguments. But nobody
even asked him why this should be a sperate package.

> 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.

Do you want to intergrate it into a *frozen* package?

> 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.

He already stated that.

> 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 I'm right he didn't got a reply to his mail (the second one asking
for details etc IIRC). And just asking after 3 month he asks why his
package isn't accepted nor rejected. I don't think that's whining.

And actual the core packaging tools need a lot of changes. I'm
especially thinking about the changes needed to support BSD and the
Hurd. I hope that won't go the same way.

> 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.

No, then something might change and the problems would be fixed. That
would be too nice of course. Let's all shut up and keep being
noncooperate fools...

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgp8EyCUUhuw3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: