Re: [debian-devel] mICQ packaging (was: Re: On the matter of Qt packaging)
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 03:08:00AM +0100, Rüdiger Kuhlmann wrote:
> Although it's always nice to speak with upstream about such changes, it
> is not mandated.
Look, whether it is mandated or not is simply irrelevant, it is a cowardly
behaviour, and it is far from nice from you to try to cover that up.
Thanks for putting it down so fast without even trying to check what I was
talking about. Though somehow I have that feeling that you didn't got the
quoting levels right...
> > With packaging mICQ being the most important reason.
> You are aware that you cannot just hijack packages, do you?
Yes, and? I hardly beliebe that "madkiss" really hangs so much on that
package, that is, unless he needs the number of maintained packages for his
ego. In particular, since he doesn't use the package at all, doesn't bother
to inform himself about any development effort and generally doesn't care.
Actually, I'm doing more work on the BTS entries than he does (hint: #178337
was fixed upstream before it was reported and thus can be closed).
> > * dropping FAQ, AUTHORS and README from the package (his debian/copyright even
> > refers to the README).
> > * dropping of mICQ's logo menu entry
> well, OK.
> > * (90% unnecessary changes in white spaces in debian /rules)
> some people consider this good style to cut down on the size of the
> debian diff.
Yes. Me too. So what do you want to say?
> > * the removal of the -O4 option - if you really want to triple its size...
> Policy, Section 11.1.
I don't see having an -O4 to be against policy. It might have to be done in
a different way, but that wasn't my point. So again, what's your point?
> > * the removal of the "Debian" extra version marker -- I FREAKIN' NEED AS MUCH
> > EXTRA VERSION AS POSSIBLE IF A USER COMES UP WITH A PROBLEM, SET IT TO
> > "Debian" BUT JUST DON'T REMOVE IT, THANK YOU. Mandrake did manage to get
> > that right, so Debian should be, too.
> what's that about? if you need to encode 'extra information' in the
> version string, something seems to be broken on your part. See Policy,
> Section 4., for more information about the version number format.
You totally missed the point. It's not about the version number of the
package. Consider it similar to Mozilla having a user agent of "Mozilla/5.0
(X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021226 Debian/1.2.1-92"
instead of "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; de-AT; rv:1.2.1)
> > So his package has three things left out, a huge pile of totally useless
> > changes, and a few changes that might actually be usefull.
> Wow. so you bitch essentially about whitespace, some documentation
> files, valid policy updates and two changelog entries?
I'm not bitching at all. And if you don't understand what I'm complaining
about and about what not in a complete list of what was changed than please
better don't say anything at all. In particular, since you didn't bother
to do some reading on your own.
Look, the point is that he doesn't bother to look at the diff generated by
his changes at all. He just blindly follows his previous packaging.
> > Add to that a trivial to fix bug in woody that's so annoying that you
> > don't want to use it and a copyright violation as well in woody,
> You might want to read up on how updates to woody are handled.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I do know how they're handled, and I know
that fixing those issues was refused by the release manager (which you could
have known by reading the bug reports in question).
That doesn't change, however, the fact that it is broken when a package,
that isn't legally distributable the way it is, cannot be fixed when all
that needs be done is fixing a text file, as well as when a package can't be
fixed with a rather trivial fix for a bug that makes it very annoying to use
in practical usage. However, this is only marginally of interest in this
100 DM = 51 € 13 ¢.
100 € = 195 DM 58 pf.