Re: stop the "manage with debconf" madness
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 20:21:14 +0100,
>> Matt Ryan <mryan@debian.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
less conformance.
Jesus.
manoj
--
There appears to be irrefutable evidence that the mere fact of
overcrowding induces violence. Harvey Wheeler
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <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
Reply to: