Re: Debianized ndiswrapper-source is better on SourceForge
* 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?