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

Re: O: Gnus -- A versatile News and mailing list reader for Emacsen.

On 25 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link outgrape:

> * Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> [060425 18:09]:
>> On what basis are you making this decision? I explained that it is
>> important, for debugging and development reasons for the free
>> software community, to be able to easily build upstream versions to
>> see how it compares to the debian patched version of the software,
>> so if the maintainers hacking in .orig breaks the build system, the
>> system should be fixed.
> I do not think the .orig should be changed to make it compile under
> Debian when it does not do so by default

        Oh, so no reasons, just opinions and because you like it.

        So, the DD can break upstream build system by removing parts,
 and has not responsibility for fixing it, because  Bernhard R. Link
 likes it that way.  Despite the faqct the build system was fine until
 I start hacking on it.

        I am afraid I do not find this line of reasoning, if i may
 call it that, convincing.

> (unless you do a fork and properly name yourself as upstream
> maintainer of that fork).

        It remains a derived package as well as a fork, yes.

> And if the .orig.tar.gz no longer compiles because of anything in
> it, be it removal of a hypothetical directory called ".." or some
> non-free stuff.  If comparing a version without additional patches
> and a full-patched version is so important, I'd rather suggest to
> use some patch management system allowing to get the source in two
> different working states, one with only patches to make it build and
> one with all the Debian changes.

        I know you would rather do something else, especially since it
 saves you work, but the users probably like the  freedom to compile
 upstream versions if they need to.

>>> I guess it would be less of an issue, if he did not insist of what
>>> almost everyone else has agreed on and I never saw disputed is
>>> "unethical".
>> Ah. Your technical and policy decisions are biased by my
>> belief that some practice is unethical, as opposed to the merits of
>> the issue in your eyes? I see. I now know better how to categorize
>> your opinions, then.
> No. But my (and other people's) style of discussion is sometimes 
> influenced by weather I'm getting insults thrown in my directions.
> Its hard work to calm down and try to bring rational arguments, when
> you have to stand a "you are all wrong and doing unethical things,
> just because all of you do the wrong and unethical thing, I won't
> do it" repitition.

        Well, I happen to like calling it as I see it, especially
 since it is my actions the discussion started about.  If you do not
 like my reasons, don't question why I am doing things the way I do


It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of
Providence. The Earl of Birkenhead
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: