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

Re: Bug#133578: gdm bug #133578. Intend to NMU.

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:26:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> > We're not here to create a system out of ugly hacks and bad design;
> Sure, it is definitely something unacceptable to get the language
> setting from /etc/environment (that's plain obvious, just have to read
> the AIX documentation


Why should I go read the AIX documentation to find out something about

Will you ever start making sense?

> that I gave a pointer previously to get that...), it is WAY BETTER to
> release sarge with GDM without i18n!

What's "good" or "bad" is a highly subjective criterion. As I have said
before (you seem to ignore this, but still): according to our
constitution, the only one with any authority about what will happen to
gdm at this time is the maintainer, unless overruled by the tech

If you're unhappy about that, that's all fair and good, and it obviously
is your right; but blattering on about it on this list will not change
anything.  Especially not if you continue to blatter about a proposed
fix which was rejected.

> >> Unless you can get a GR removing the "Our priorities are our users",
> >> "We will be guided by the needs of our users", "We will place their
> >> interests first in our priorities", from the Social Contract, the
> >> maintainer is supposed to pay attention to users.
> >
> > Not that argument again.
> Sure, that's annoying to have written rules.

No, it's annoying to have to discuss things with people who don't seem
to fathom the fact that "our users are our priority" does not
necessarily imply we have to implement every single suggestion, no
matter how broken, made by some random person backing it with "It'll be
for the best of our users!"

The social contract is a general guideline. While working on the Debian
system, we should keep it in mind at all times; and when making a
decision on one of our packages, we should consider the effect on our
users against what the social contract says.

The SC does not even consist of rules. It is a statement of basic

> Things would be easier if it was written there "the maintainer just
> have to care about his own interest" or, best, nothing written.

Well, if you think so. Be my guest, start another project; call it
"Anarchy Linux", or so.

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: