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

Re: bits from the release team

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:33:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 January 2006 23:01, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Indeed. The d-i team usually says "no" outright to any kind of proposal
> > of this kind, so it is up to the kernel team to come up with an
> > implementation which convinces them :)
> Bullshit.
> We (d-i team, mainly Joey) gave very good reasons why we thought the 
> proposal was not good and would result in more problems than it solved.

You did indeed give good reasons why having the one .udeb per module plan i
follhardly proposed would not work.

The current proposal is about simply using the same .udeb organisation and
move it inside the linux-2.6 common package, which is something that works out
just fine for ubuntu even, but which the current linux-2.6 common package
infrastructure could also handle. The only reason i saw against this was a
mail from joeyh mentioning ease of moving modules around inside .udebs, and
that this would be easier under the d-i umbrella than if it is inside the
kernel, and naturally the old sarge-time brokeness in the archive
infrastructure, which is presumably fixed by now, or should be fixed for etch.

I believe that this is indeed an argument, but which is outweighted by the
benefit especially on the port situation, i believe, and the reason i come
back with this times after time :)

> That you choose to structurally ignore the opinions, comments and 
> objections by others who are a lot more knowledgeable about the _other_ 
> area in Debian impacted by the proposal is typical.

Yeah, i am an idiot and you know best, especially when you fail to clearly
understand what i propose and chose to reject it on the basis of what you
think i propose, this is probably due in part to some lacking in my
communication skills, but i guess you also don't make things easy.

> Your half-baked proposals may look good from a kernel maintenance 
> viewpoint, but in our opinion they have a negative impact on the d-i side 
> of the equation.

And have you added stable-security into the equation ? Your choices of back in
april are in part responsible for the abysmal situation in stable-security
with regard to kernels during these past months. Don't look only to save a few
hours of work during the moment, in order to lose huge amounts of times (and
irremediable lose of face even) later on.

> Rejecting a badly thought out proposal is _not_ the same as saying no 
> outright.

Yeah, but you have kept saying to me : it is a stupid idea, don't even think
about it, and then you speak about badly thought out proposal ? 

> I'm not going to repeat the arguments here. They can be found in the 
> archives.

Indeed, apart from the fact that they are the arguments against the wrong
proposal :)

> Your attitude does nothing to motivate me to work on this.

Yep, but i don't ask you to work on this, while you ask me to not work on it
and keep the status quo, which is broken.


Sven Luther

Reply to: