Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
What is so damn hard about respecting a "Mail-Followup-To:" header?
On 11-Nov-03, 06:24 (CST), Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I didn't claim all of them are trolling. But a few of them are. Also IIRC I
> haven't put in question their experience as developers.
Your reply to Marcello:
> It's easy for people who are already used to Debian de-facto
> standards. Since I am and you're not ,
sure sounds like you're questioning Marcello's experience. Your footnote
("Your reasoning shows either you're not used to them, or you're plainly
trolling.") doesn't help.
> > No, most of the packages in Debian give me the source with a simple
> > 'dpkg-source -x'. No rules file reading necessary.
> Not that many, actualy. An important number of them apply patches dynamicaly
> either directly or after unpacking upstream sources.
"Not that many, actually"? Are you serious? If so, we now know for sure
which participant in this thread is not familiar with Debian packaging.
First you write:
> > > It's easy for people who are already used to Debian de-facto standards.
And then you write:
> When I said "de-facto standards" I didn't refer to CDBS. There's currently
> no de-facto standard for debian/rules files, although there are a bunch of
> attempts at becoming one (and CDBS is one of them).
So which is it? Are there de-facto standards for people to be familiar
with, or are are there no de-facto standards?
You can't even be consistent with your own quote staring you in the
PS I wrote this, and then decided not to post it, until I read your
reply to Lukas Guyer, which once again made a big deal about how you
were following the "de-facto standards" of Debian. It's amazing how much
intellectual dishonesty one person can demonstrate in so little space.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net