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

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

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > 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.

How many software programs called "linux" are around?

> IIRC you prefered not to
> answer to it but refered to an URL which did not contain the answers.

I don't recall seeing this question before. So unless you provide a link to
that, you're liing.

> > 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.

Untill Linus changes the package name, this issue is not my problem.

> > 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.

I don't recall seeing such "ultimate argument" before. So unless you provide
a link to that, you're liing again.

> But did you ask yourself why Herbert does not
> participiate this discussion to help you?

I guess Herbert has better things to do than wasting his time in this stupid
flame. Btw, "stupid flame" is your choice of words, not mine:


> > - 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?

As I said before I'm unwilling to understand your sarcasm.

Robert Millan

"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."

 -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)

Reply to: