Re: private debian pools
It seems like this started of badly, or something, and I am
not quite sure why.
It is possible some misunderstandings occured along the way, so
I am going to try once more to get it sorted out.
Also please not that no where was I attempting to blame James for any of
the problems that occured when using his software, and I apologize if
he somehow got that impression. I realize I made some mistakes with the
software and I take full responsibilty for them myself.
Unfortunately my feedback was interpreted as being insulting,
and I don't know why.
For instance, at one point when I said that Katie was inappropriate to
use for private package pools (something that is documented in the
README file) and gave my reasons, and James thought I was insulting his
program. I never intended my response to be read this way, I was simply
justifying at the time why I thought it was appropriate for me to
duplicate the work.
I am not so sure of this justification now, for instance my design
doesn't allow for automatically deleting obsolete packages without
deleting the *.orig.tar.gz file; it might be possible to add this but I
might end up simply recreating my own version of DAK.
If there is anything I could do to improve the quality of my feedback
please let me know.
Also at no point did I expect James or anybody else to use patches
without even reviewing them first. That was a typo, and I apologize for
any confusion it might have caused.
Also, perhaps it was a mistake to give my ideas on what could be done to
improve DAK. It might have seemed like I was trying to force these ideas
on to others.
I hope this E-Mail will repair some of the damage done during yesterdays
most unconstructive discussions.
Brian May <firstname.lastname@example.org>