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

Re: Debianized ndiswrapper-source is better on SourceForge

#include <hallo.h>
* William Ballard [Mon, Jan 10 2005, 11:32:45AM]:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > identify problems, both in upstream and packaged versions. Posting in
> > d-d is at least inappropriate.
> It's an open list.

There is some reason for its existance (discussions about general

> works and another guy is trying to produce a package which requires 
> module-assistant and "looks like" other packages.

What are other packages?! WTF do are you talking about? You go to a
dessert when you wanna drink? Or how can you explain this attitude?

If you do not know what I mean, try building your dear modules package
on a pure installation. You will have to install build-essential and/or
dpkg-dev in order to do _anything_. And doing so, you could also install
the module-assistant package (about 40kB) but provides some comfort for
users and comfort, code size reduction, extendability, automatic feature
upgrades for developers.

> The upstream is better.  It's already Debianized.  Do not use the one in 
> the Debian archive.

What do you smoke?

 - broken / insufficient Dependencies
 - lacks of features like package signing (no kdist rule) and
   destination directory specification. A typical obsolete template from
 - Oh jeez, it depends on the utils package? Have you already sent a "you
   stupid dickhead" mail to the upstream already? No? Why not?


Reply to: