Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:27:38AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Oh, I forgot to mention that if Ubuntu continues to ignore Ian Murdock's > > warnings about breaking compatability with debs, it will end up a fork > > in my book even if most of the underlying code is substantially the > > same, and this will be a very painful and damaging kind of fork too, as > > we will get deb dependency hell. > > If Ian were to approach Ubuntu (rather than, say, Slashdot) with clear and > genuine concerns, I would be more than willing to discuss the situation with > him to explain what we're doing and why. As noted, it was in his blog (and elsewhere, such as some webcast interview). I suspect he has a reason for bringing up this concern in public not private, but I can't speak for him of course. > > Ignoring, flaming, and pooh-poohing Ian on this, which is all the response > > I've seen so far, is not smart. :-/ > > There's certainly been some amount of ignoring, but if you have records of > anyone representing Ubuntu flaming on this subject (or any other), I'd like > to hear about it privately. I'm offline and it would be hard to dig up the history anyway since planet debian has no archives, but my general impression from blog entries that followed Ian's was, at best, dismissal. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature