Re: gcc 3.2 epoch?
On Thursday 09 January 2003 10:04, Miles Bader wrote:
> The point is that the extension you've proposed above doesn't change
> anything -- the `real' version used within many contexts would still
> be the full-with-epoch version. The fact that there's an additional
> `upstream version' field wouldn't change that anymore than the
> current ability to strip off the epoch does, so there's little poitn
> to having such a field.
> Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're
Could this _non-sense_ please be stopped?
Exchange the above content and signature and you still have the same
outcome: There is no point in wasting technical and neuronal bandwidth
to replace working solutions with xxxxxxx ..., neither
- Debian release numbers
- mass bugging wishlists
- (fill in any cruft here that you find occasionally on the main
developer mailing lists, that should keep people actually working
on/for/with Debian together)
If you find yourself, like me, giving up one list after the other,
because most spam is more interesting than intended content, you will
surely _know_ what i mean.
May be you will find that i'm myself too quiet, but while working in
the background i cumulate a feeling that one of the greatest things on
this planet, Debian project, is slowly dying if the real problems are
not going to be handled:
- real brokenness of dists
- growing administrative work, project mgmt.
to name only some. Hold your breath for a moment and i'm sure you will
find at least one point to add ...
My english is bad as always and i'm missing the words now, so let me
simply express how i feel: i really love you people, working on
infrastructure, keeping the archive going, looking after new and old
releases, making up your minds about transitions, working on great,
usable pkgs and working with the press - that you appear less and less
on the lists makes me think, that your workload is rising more and more
- and it is exactly that what is happening: the real work is going to
be put on less people everyday, if anybody else thinks ... or better,
Every new 'WNPP report' is a clear sign, we've already seen valuable
people leaving the project, loosing more will be deadly IMHO. Although
i'd be the first one to stand up against two tier maintainer structures
or anything like that, i currently have to admit that i'm proud of
anybody who is really doing something to keep the project going.
The world keeps changing, IT does and so has the Debian project - i
don't think that it can shrink by artificial means. We will have to
develop _ways to go_, like oldtimer developers did in the good old
days, only that hardware and speed is no longer the issue, but clean
interfaces and clear tasks are. And there is one word through all the
times, discipline, meaning the spiritual habitat of each (knowing when
and why to keep quiet for instance) that makes it possible for the
plenum to learn and prosper from day to day.
Each port shows the incredible flexibility of the Debian project,
upstream developers sometimes just can't believe it. Taking policy as
policy, commercial use simply as such and trying to guess some of the
spirit that brought us all to where we are (eg. DFSG, Social Contract
come to mind) i strongly believe that Debian might well have an
unforeseeable future, if it can survive tomorrow ...
EOT. Sorry for the additional noise. Honestly kind regards, martin