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

Re: Complaint



On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:19:47AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:

> > Well, compromise the machine of some DDs and you have the same. Compromising
> > machines opens are serious security issue regardless for what the machine is
> > used. 
> Yes. But debian-admin is not responsible for those machines; therefore,
> they are irrelevant to the discussion of "why hasn't debian-admin fixed
> <foo>". That, and most developer machines tende to have a half dozen
> packages, at most, rather than 9000...

What makes you think that DSA is responsible for all buildds?

> Or maybe it's an evil conspiracy. No, you're right, it must be; there's no
> other *possible* explanation...

Why people tend to become polemic when they have no arguments left?

> > Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by him, I
> > wouldn´t complain... but I do complain. 
> Unless you are the local administrator of one of the build daemons, I
> doubt you'd have seen any of his attempts at coordination. Even if you
> are, it's quite possible that he simply hasn't gotton that far down the
> list yet. (Though I'd consider it a more significant failure, given that
> he presumably should be sending some form of "let me know when you can be
> available if we need it" emails).

So, you obviously have no clue that I´m running a buildd, but you´re trying
to comment on stuff you don´t know the stories behind? Funny... 

> > And as pointed out by me, It´s more than 1 business day. 
> Okay. So it's 3. That's still ludicrously good to have ANYTHING like the
> amount of progress we've seen, given Debian's history. And, frankly, if
> you've ever had to try to recover a compromised remote box which had stuff
> on it that you couldn't just wipe out, I would expect you to have some
> understanding of how good it is to manage to get as many buildds done as
> quickly as has happened.

And I can tell you that the process could have been faster. 
Of course it´s lot of work for a single person to manage several machines at
the same time. 

> In other words, the only two explanations I can see are either that you
> have no real concept of what you're discussing, or that you're being
> deliberately obtuse about the lot of it.

Don´t always speak with the man in the mirror. 

-- 
Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/



Reply to: