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

Re: Debianized ndiswrapper-source is better on SourceForge

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:32:45AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> 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.

And streets are public, but you urinating in them is still inappropriate.

> The problem is the upstream has the goal of producing a package that 
> works and another guy is trying to produce a package which requires 
> module-assistant and "looks like" other packages.

Ah, you've nailed it here.  Of course, the Debian maintainer had no
intention of making a package that worked, it was all about making a
showpiece... you've torn back the curtain of *this* little conspiracy.

Oh, but wait, the version of ndiswrapper-source in testing is packaged by
the same maintainer, and it works just fine for me.

> Listen, I'm just going to say this and not reply to all the bazillion 
> other flames which are coming:

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

This is off-topic for this list.  If you want to propagandize .deb packages
that come from non-Debian sources, try doing it somewhere that your opinion
is actually respected.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: