[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

First: STOP putting my private address into the To: line. I read the
debian-devel list.

#include <hallo.h>
* Robert Millan [Sun, Nov 09 2003, 07:17:33PM]:

> > The only more stupid thing I can imagine in this scope is uploading a
> > package called "debian" or "gnu".
> 1) You said before you were concerned about my package occupiing the package
> namespace in the archive. The fact that you don't like the name of my package
> proves your previous argument was intentionaly bogus.

The fact of the too generic package name was mentioned before within
other arguments against your "linux" package. IIRC you prefered not to
answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.

> 2) I use the upstream name. If you don't like it, bitch upstream.

Sorry, how much did you drink to find an answer like this one? If Linus
changes the package name (which is unlikely to happen ;)), I am sure you
would rename your ITP to follow him.

> > I hope that FTP master won't sleep
> > while auditing your upload and put a wall between you and the unstable
> > archive.
> The FTP masters will have to dig through the smoke curtain you and others
> attempted to rise. Fortunately, there are two reasons why this shouldn't be
> a problem:
> - The current Linux kernel maintainer welcomes my work:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00452.html

You repeat this again and again and got answers from me and others to
such an ultimate argument. But did you ask yourself why Herbert does not
participiate this discussion to help you?

> - Noone managed to beat the advantages I listed before:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200311/msg00414.html

And after removing bogus and irrelevant ones from that list, it became
empty. Why cannot you invent something new to convince us?


Reply to: