Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:21:14 +0100,
>> Matt Ryan <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> Secondly, this isnot a witch hunt. What is being done is that a
>> policy violation in older practice is being pointed
>> out. Alternatives are being discussed; a witch hunt would have
>> involved mass RC bug filings.
> The TEX discussion is definitely in witchunt territory. Maintainers
Really? We are discussion a policy violation that causes loss
of user changes, and you think this is a witch hunt? And You happen
to be a developer. Seems like a flaw in the NM process
> (on the whole) try to make the best job they can of the packaging
> of their programs.
Anyone can make mistakes.
> What is not helpful is when a developer gets a bad case of NOMUS
> (Not On My UNIX System) and goes off on one about how perfectly the
> world would be if everyone agreed with their narrow definition of
> the 'correct' way to do things. The recent /run debate was another
> example of this virulent disease taking hold amongst the vocal
> developer cabal.
Really a flaw in the NM process. Don't we require peopel to
acknowledge the importance of policy nowadays?
> Diversity is what keeps the human race going...
Right. The hell with policy, since following policy is mind
There appears to be irrefutable evidence that the mere fact of
overcrowding induces violence. Harvey Wheeler
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C